The contribution of the anaesthetist to risk-adjusted mortality after cardiac surgery

It is widely accepted that the performance of the operating surgeon affects outcomes, and this has led to the publication of surgical results in the public domain. However, the effect of other members of the multidisciplinary team is unknown. We studied the effect of the anaesthetist on mortality after cardiac surgery by analysing data collected prospectively over ten years of consecutive cardiac surgical cases from ten UK centres. Casemix-adjusted outcomes were analysed in models that included random-effects for centre, surgeon and anaesthetist. All cardiac surgical operations for which the EuroSCORE model is appropriate were included, and the primary outcome was in-hospital death up to three months postoperatively. A total of 110 769 cardiac surgical procedures conducted between April 2002 and March 2012 were studied, which included 127 consultant surgeons and 190 consultant anaesthetists. The overwhelming factor associated with outcome was patient risk, accounting for 95.75% of the variation for in-hospital mortality. The impact of the surgeon was moderate (intra-class correlation coefficient 4.00% for mortality), and the impact of the anaesthetist was negligible (0.25%). There was no significant effect of anaesthetist volume above ten cases per year. We conclude that mortality after cardiac surgery is primarily determined by the patient, with small but significant differences between surgeons. Anaesthetists did not appear to affect mortality. These findings do not support public disclosure of cardiac anaesthetists' results, but substantially validate current UK cardiac anaesthetic training and practice. Further research is required to establish the potential effects of very low anaesthetic caseloads and the effect of cardiac anaesthetists on patient morbidity

Effect of individual patient risk, centre, surgeon and anaesthetist on length of stay in hospital after cardiac surgery: Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Critical Care (ACTACC) consecutive cases series study of 10 UK specialist centres.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative contributions of patient risk profile, local and individual clinical practice on length of hospital stay after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Ten-year audit of prospectively collected consecutive cardiac surgical cases. Case-mix adjusted outcomes were analysed in models that included random effects for centre, surgeon and anaesthetist. SETTING: UK centres providing adult cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: 10 of 36 UK specialist centres agreed to provide outcomes for all major cardiac operations over 10 years. After exclusions (duplicates, cases operated by more than one consultant, deaths and procedures for which the EuroSCORE risk score for cardiac surgery is not appropriate), there were 107 038 cardiac surgical procedures between April 2002 and March 2012, conducted by 127 consultant surgeons and 190 consultant anaesthetists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Length of stay (LOS) up to 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The principal component of variation in outcomes was patient risk (represented by the EuroSCORE and remaining patient heterogeneity), accounting for 95.43% of the variation for postoperative LOS. The impact of the surgeon and centre was moderate (intra-class correlation coefficients ICC=2.79% and 1.59%, respectively), whereas the impact of the anaesthetist was negligible (ICC=0.19%). Similarly, 96.05% of the variation for prolonged LOS (>11 days) was attributable to the patient, with surgeon and centre less but still influential components (ICC=2.12% and 1.66%, respectively, 0.17% only for anaesthetists). Adjustment for year of operation resulted in minor reductions in variation attributable to surgeons (ICC=2.52% for LOS and 2.23% for prolonged LOS). CONCLUSIONS: Patient risk profile is the primary determinant of variation in LOS, and as a result, current initiatives to reduce hospital stay by modifying consultant performance are unlikely to have a substantial impact. Therefore, substantially reducing hospital stay requires shifting away from a one-size-fits-all approach to cardiac surgery, and seeking alternative treatment options personalised to high-risk patients

Maximizing the value of engineering and technology research in healthcare: development‐focused health technology assessment

This chapter focuses on three main topics. The first aims to provide an explanation of the principles of health technology assessment (HTA) and its familiar role in determining coverage of healthcare provision. Second, we discuss the growing contribution of HTA in the development and translation of medical devices introducing what we term “development‐focused HTA”(DF‐HTA). We set out the role of DF‐HTA in identifying needs, assessing the potential of technologies in development, aiding design, and tailoring evidence generation activities. Finally, we outline the challenges of development and assessment presented by medical devices distinguishing large capital items, point of care devices, diagnostics, implantables, and digital devices. Each category of device has its own set of challenges for developers and HTA analysts alike. Challenges include a complex licensing and regulation environment, short lifespan and incremental improvement, difficulties in generating clinical evidence, the importance of contextual factors (e.g., how the device will be used and by whom), patient and clinician acceptance, and the indirect health benefit from diagnostic devices

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via surgical subclavian versus direct aortic access: A United Kingdom analysis

BACKGROUND: Surgical subclavian (SC) and direct aortic (DA) access are established alternatives to the default transfemoral route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to find differences in survival and procedure-related outcomes after SC- versus DA-TAVI. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort analysis of cases prospectively uploaded to the UK TAVI registry. To ensure the most contemporaneous comparison, the analysis focused on SC and DA procedures performed from 2013 to 2015. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and July 2015, 82 (37%) SC and 142 (63%) DA cases were performed that had validated 1-year life status. Multivariable regression analysis showed procedure duration was longer for SC cases (SC 193.5 ± 65.8 vs. DA 138.4 ± 57.7 min; p < .01) but length of hospital stay was shorter (SC 8.6 ± 9.5 vs. DA 11.9 ± 10.8 days; p = .03). Acute kidney injury was observed less frequently after SC cases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.12-0.96]; p = .042) but vascular access site-related complications were more common (OR 9.75 [3.07-30.93]; p < .01). Procedure-related bleeding (OR 0.54 [0.24-1.25]; p = .15) and in-hospital stroke rate (SC 3.7% vs. DA 2.1%; p = .67) were similar. There were no significant differences in in-hospital (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.9%; p = .49), 30-day (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.2%; p = .71) or 1-year (SC 14.5% vs. DA 21.9%; p = .344) mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical subclavian and direct aortic approaches can offer favourable outcomes in appropriate patients. Neither access modality conferred a survival advantage but there were significant differences in procedural metrics that might influence which approach is selected