Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and insurance-based disparities in mortality after major surgery among US adults

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in surgical care. Whether these disruptions disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged individuals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mortality after major surgery among patients with Medicaid insurance or without insurance compared with patients with commercial insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Vizient Clinical Database for patients who underwent major surgery at hospitals in the US between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Exposures: The hospital proportion of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19 cases between March 1 and May 31, 2020, stratified as low (≤5.0%), medium (5.1%-10.0%), high (10.1%-25.0%), and very high (\u3e25.0%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was inpatient mortality. The association between mortality after surgery and payer status as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated with a quasi-experimental triple-difference approach using logistic regression. Results: Among 2 950 147 adults undergoing inpatient surgery (1 550 752 female [52.6%]) at 677 hospitals, the primary payer was Medicare (1 427 791 [48.4%]), followed by commercial insurance (1 000 068 [33.9%]), Medicaid (321 600 [10.9%]), other payer (140 959 [4.8%]), and no insurance (59 729 [2.0%]). Mortality rates increased more for patients undergoing surgery during the first wave of the pandemic in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01) and a very high COVID-19 burden (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53; P \u3c .001) compared with patients in hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. Overall, patients with Medicaid had 29% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.22-1.36; P \u3c .001) and patients without insurance had 75% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; P \u3c .001) compared with patients with commercial insurance. However, mortality rates for surgical patients with Medicaid insurance (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79) or without insurance (AOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; P = .60) did not increase more than for patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden compared with hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. These findings were similar in hospitals with very high COVID-19 burdens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher risk of mortality after surgery in hospitals with more than 25.0% of patients with COVID-19. However, the pandemic was not associated with greater increases in mortality among patients with no insurance or patients with Medicaid compared with patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a very high COVID-19 burden

The incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with late right-sided heart failure in patients supported with an axial-flow left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND: Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is associated with increased mortality, but little is known about patients who develop late RHF (LRHF). We evaluated the incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of LRHF in patients supported by axial-flow LVADs. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 537 patients enrolled in the HeartMate II (HM II; Thoratec/St. Jude) destination therapy clinical trial. LRHF was defined as the development of clinical RHF accompanied by the need for inotropic support occurring more than 30 days after discharge from the index LVAD implant hospitalization. Clinical variables, quality of life, rehospitalizations, and survival were compared between patients with and without LRHF. RESULTS: LRHF developed in 41 patients (8%), with a median time to LRHF of 480 days. A higher preoperative blood urea nitrogen and increased central venous pressure-to-pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio were independent predictors of LRHF. The Michigan and HMII RHF risk scores were both associated with an increased likelihood of LRHF (p < 0.05). Patients with LRHF had worse quality of life according to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (61 ± 26 vs 70 ± 21; p < 0.05), poorer functional capacity by 6-minute walk distance (275 ± 189 m vs 312 ± 216 m; p < 0.05), and more rehospitalizations (6 vs 3; p < 0.001). LRHF was associated with decreased survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LRHF is an important complication in patients with LVADs and is associated with worse quality of life, reduced functional capacity, more frequent hospitalizations, and worse survival compared with those without LRHF

Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: A propensity-matched analysis

ObjectiveOur study compares late mortality and valve-related morbidities between nonelderly patients (aged <65 years) undergoing stented bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement in the aortic position.MethodsWe identified 1701 consecutive patients aged <65 years who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1992 and 2011. A stented bioprosthetic valve was used in 769 patients (45%) and a mechanical valve was used in 932 patients (55%). A stepwise logistic regression propensity score identified a subset of 361 evenly matched patient-pairs. Late outcomes of death, reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke were assessed.ResultsFollow-up was 99% complete. The mean age in the matched cohort was 53.9 years (bioprosthetic valve) and 53.2 years (mechanical valve) (P = .30). Fifteen additional measurable variables were statistically similar for the matched cohort. Thirty-day mortality was 1.9% (bioprosthetic valve) and 1.4% (mechanical valve) (P = .77). Survival at 5, 10, 15, and 18 years was 89%, 78%, 65%, and 60% for patients with bioprosthetic valves versus 88%, 79%, 75%, and 51% for patients with mechanical valves (P = .75). At 18 years, freedom from reoperation was 95% for patients with mechanical valves and 55% for patients with bioprosthetic valves (P = .002), whereas freedom from a major bleeding event favored patients with bioprosthetic valves (98%) versus mechanical valves (78%; P = .002). There was no difference in stroke between the 2 matched groups.ConclusionsIn patients aged <65 years, despite an increase in the rate of reoperation with stented bioprosthetic valves and an increase in major bleeding events with mechanical valves, there is no significant difference in mortality at late follow-up

Design and characteristics of the prophylactic intra-operative ventricular arrhythmia ablation in high-risk LVAD candidates (PIVATAL) trial

BACKGROUND: The use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in patients with advanced heart failure refractory to optimal medical management has progressed steadily over the past two decades. Data have demonstrated reduced LVAD efficacy, worse clinical outcome, and higher mortality for patients who experience significant ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA). We hypothesize that a novel prophylactic intra-operative VTA ablation protocol at the time of LVAD implantation may reduce the recurrent VTA and adverse events postimplant. METHODS: We designed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized-controlled clinical trial enrolling 100 patients who are LVAD candidates with a history of VTA in the previous 5 years. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to intra-operative VTA ablation (n = 50) versus conventional medical management (n = 50) with LVAD implant. Arrhythmia outcomes data will be captured by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to monitor VTA events, with a uniform ICD programming protocol. Patients will be followed prospectively over a mean of 18 months (with a minimum of 9 months) after LVAD implantation to evaluate recurrent VTA, adverse events, and procedural outcomes. Secondary endpoints include right heart function/hemodynamics, healthcare utilization, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The primary aim of this first-ever randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of intra-operative ablation during LVAD surgery in reducing VTA recurrence and improving clinical outcomes for patients with a history of VTA

Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-minimally invasive technique in the era of transcatheter valve replacement

Objective: Reoperative aortic valve replacement (re-AVR) in octogenarians is considered high risk and therefore might be indicated for transcatheter AVR. The minimally invasive technique for re-AVR limits dissection and might benefit this patient population. We report the outcomes of re-AVR in high-risk octogenarians who might be considered candidates for transcatheter AVR to assess the safety of re-AVR and minimally invasive operative techniques. Methods: We identified 105 patients, aged >= 80 years, who underwent open re-AVR at our institution from July 1997 to December 2011. Patients requiring concomitant coronary bypass surgery and/or other valve surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest included operative mortality, postoperative complications, and midterm postoperative survival. Results: Of the 105 patients, 51 underwent minimally re-AVR through upper hemisternotomy (Mre-AVR) and 54 standard full sternotomy (Fre-AVR). The mean patient age was 82.8 +/- 3.8 years. No significant differences were found in the patient risk factors. Postoperatively, 6 patients (5.7%) underwent reoperation for bleeding, 4 (3.8%) experienced permanent stroke, 4 (3.8%) developed new renal failure, and 22 (21.0%) had new-onset atrial fibrillation. Overall, the operative mortality was 6.7%, and the 1- and 5-year survival was 87% and 53%, respectively. When Mre-AVR and Fre-AVR were compared, the operative mortality was 9.2% in the Fre-AVR group and 3.9% in the Mre-AVR group (P = .438). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a survival benefit at both 1 year (79% +/- 11.7% vs 92% +/- 7.8%) and 5 years (38% +/- 17.6% vs 65% +/- 15.7%, P = .028) favoring Mre-AVR. Cox regression analysis identified heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, reoperation for bleeding, older age, full sternotomy, and an infectious complication as predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Octogenarians who undergo re-AVR are thought to be high-risk surgical candidates. The present single-center series revealed acceptable in-hospital outcomes and operative mortality. Mre-AVR was associated with better survival compared with Fre-AVR and might benefit this populatio