Hospital characteristics and patient populations served by physician owned and non physician owned orthopedic specialty hospitals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The emergence of physician owned specialty hospitals focusing on high margin procedures has generated significant controversy. Yet, it is unclear whether physician owned specialty hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty hospitals and thus merit the additional scrutiny that has been proposed. Our objective was to assess whether physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ with respect to hospital characteristics and patient populations served.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a descriptive study using Medicare data of beneficiaries who underwent total hip replacement (THR) (N = 10,478) and total knee replacement (TKR) (N = 15,312) in 29 physician owned and 8 non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals during 1999–2003. We compared hospital characteristics of physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals including procedural volumes of major joint replacements (THR and TKR), hospital teaching status, and for profit status. We then compared demographics and prevalence of common comorbid conditions for patients treated in physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals. Finally, we examined whether the socio-demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods where physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals differed, as measured by zip code level data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Physician owned specialty hospitals performed fewer major joint replacements on Medicare beneficiaries in 2003 than non physician owed specialty hospitals (64 vs. 678, P < .001), were less likely to be affiliated with a medical school (6% vs. 43%, P = .05), and were more likely to be for profit (94% vs. 28%, P = .001). Patients who underwent major joint replacement in physician owned specialty hospitals were less likely to be black than patients in non physician owned specialty hospitals (2.5% vs. 3.1% for THR, P = .15; 1.8% vs. 6.3% for TKR, P < .001), yet physician owned specialty hospitals were located in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of black residents (8.2% vs. 6.7%, P = .76). Patients in physician owned hospitals had lower rates of most common comorbid conditions including heart failure and obesity (P < .05 for both).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and may warrant the additional scrutiny policy makers have proposed.</p

Atorvastatin pretreatment diminishes the levels of myocardial ischemia markers early after CABG operation: an observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Statin pretreatment has been associated with a decrease in myocardial ischemia markers after various procedures and cardiovascular events. This study examined the potential beneficial effects of preoperative atorvastatin treatment among patients undergoing on-pump CABG operation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty patients that had received atorvastatin treatment for at least 15 days prior to the operation and 20 patients who had not received any antihyperlipidemic agent prior to surgery were included in this study. CK-MB and troponin I levels were measured at baseline and 24 hours after the operation. Perioperative variables were also recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-four hours after the operation, troponin I and CK-MB levels were significantly lower in the atorvastatin group: for CK-MB levels, 12.9 ± 4.3 versus 18.7 ± 7.4 ng/ml, p = 0.004; for troponin I levels, 1.7 ± 0.3 versus 2.7 ± 0.7 ng/ml, p < 0.001. In addition, atorvastatin use was associated with a decrease in the duration of ICU stay.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Preoperative atorvastatin treatment results in significant reductions in the levels of myocardial injury markers early after on-pump CABG operation, suggesting a reduction in perioperative ischemia in this group of patients. Further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms of these potential benefits of statin pretreatment.</p

Re-examining the effect of door-to-balloon delay on STEMI outcomes in the context of unmeasured confounders: a retrospective cohort study

Literature studying the door-to-balloon time-outcome relation in coronary intervention is limited by the potential of residual biases from unobserved confounders. This study re-examines the time-outcome relation with further consideration of the unobserved factors and reports the population average effect. Adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction admitted to one of the six registry participating hospitals in Australia were included in this study. The exposure variable was patient-level door-to-balloon time. Primary outcomes assessed included in-hospital and 30 days mortality. 4343 patients fulfilled the study criteria. 38.0% (1651) experienced a door-to-balloon delay of >90 minutes. The absolute risk differences for in-hospital and 30-day deaths between the two exposure subgroups with balanced covariates were 2.81 (95% CI 1.04, 4.58) and 3.37 (95% CI 1.49, 5.26) per 100 population. When unmeasured factors were taken into consideration, the risk difference were 20.7 (95% CI −2.6, 44.0) and 22.6 (95% CI −1.7, 47.0) per 100 population. Despite further adjustment of the observed and unobserved factors, this study suggests a directionally consistent linkage between longer door-to-balloon delay and higher risk of adverse outcomes at the population level. Greater uncertainties were observed when unmeasured factors were taken into consideration

Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension

Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n=6771) or candesartan (n=7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.96, P=0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82, P=0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, P=0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.91, P=0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes

Early efficacy of CABG care delivery in a low procedure-volume community hospital: operative and midterm results

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group recommended that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery should be done at high volume hospitals (>450 per year) without corresponding surgeon-volume criteria. The latter confounds procedure-volume effects substantially, and it is suggested that high surgeon-volume (>125 per year) rather than hospital-volume may be a more appropriate indicator of CABG quality. METHODS: We assessed 3-year isolated CABG morbidity and mortality outcomes at a low-volume hospital (LVH: 504 cases) and compared them to the corresponding Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) national data over the same period (2001–2003). All CABGs were performed by 5 high-volume surgeons (161–285 per year). "Best practice" care at LVH – including effective practice guidelines, protocols, data acquisition capabilities, case review process, dedicated facilities and support personnel – were closely modeled after a high-volume hospital served by the same surgeon-team. RESULTS: Operative mortality was similar for LVH and STS (OM: 2.38% vs. 2.53%), and the corresponding LVH observed-to-expected mortality (O/E = 0.81) indicated good quality relative to the STS risk model (O/E<1). Also, these results were consistent irrespective of risk category: O/E was 0, 0.9 and 1.03 for very-low risk (<1%), low risk (1–3%) and moderate-to-high risk category (>3%), respectively. Postoperative leg wound infections, ventilator hours, renal dysfunction (no dialysis), and atrial fibrillation were higher for LVH, but hospital stay was not. The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival for the LVH cohort was 96%, 94%, and 92% at one, two, and three years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that high quality CABG care can be achieved at LVH programs if 1) served by high volume surgeons and 2) patient care procedures similar to those of large programs are implemented. This approach may prove a useful paradigm to ensure high quality CABG care and early efficacy at low volume institutions that wish to comply with the Leapfrog standards