Outcomes of concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting at teaching hospitals versus nonteaching hospitals

ObjectiveHospitals with a high volume and academic status produce better patient outcomes than other hospitals after complex surgical procedures. Risk models show that concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting pose a greater risk than isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement. We examined the relationship of hospital teaching status and the presence of a thoracic surgery residency program with aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes.MethodsBy using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients who underwent concomitant aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting from 1998 to 2007 at nonteaching hospitals, teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program, and teaching hospitals with a thoracic surgery residency program. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify intergroup differences. Risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of in-hospital mortality and complication rates.ResultsThe 3 groups of patients did not differ significantly in their baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting had higher overall risk-adjusted complication rates in nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.39–1.80; P < .0001) and teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program (odds ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.26–1.60; P < .0001) than in thoracic surgery residency program hospitals. However, no difference was observed in the adjusted mortality rate for nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.04; P = .25) or teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program (odds ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1.08; P = .98) when compared with thoracic surgery residency program hospitals. Robust statistical models were used for analysis, with c-statistics of 0.98 (complications) and 0.82 (mortality).ConclusionPatients who require complex cardiac operations may have better outcomes when treated at teaching hospitals with a thoracic surgery residency program

Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysms: A nationwide risk-adjusted study of 923 patients

ObjectiveRecent studies support the use of endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, but few studies have examined the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. We evaluated nationwide data regarding short-term outcomes of TEVAR and open aortic repair (OAR) for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.MethodsFrom US Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we identified 923 patients who underwent ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 2006–2008 and who had no concomitant aortic disorders. Of these patients, 364 (39.4%) underwent TEVAR and 559 (60.6%) underwent OAR. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of TEVAR versus OAR after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Outcomes assessed were in-hospital mortality, complications, failure to rescue (defined as the mortality among patients in whom a complication develops), and disposition. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of outcomes for each approach.ResultsPatients undergoing TEVAR were older (72 ± 12 years vs 65 ± 15 years; P < .001) and had a higher Deyo comorbidity index (4.19 ± 1.79 vs 3.14 ± 2.05; P < .001) than patients undergoing OAR. Unadjusted mortality was 23.4% (85/364) for TEVAR and 28.6% (160/559) for OAR. After risk adjustment, the odds of mortality, complications, and failure to rescue were similar for TEVAR and OAR (P > .1 for all), but patients undergoing TEVAR had a greater chance of routine discharge (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3; P < .001). An interaction was identified that linked hospital size and operative approach with risk of complications (P < .001). In smaller hospitals, TEVAR was associated with lower complication rates than OAR (OR = 0.21; P < .05). Regression analysis revealed that smaller hospital size predicted significantly higher rates of mortality (OR = 2.4; P < .05), complications (OR = 4.0; P < .005), and failure to rescue (OR = 51.12; P < .001) in those undergoing OAR but not in those undergoing TEVAR. Preexisting renal disorders substantially increased mortality risk (OR = 10.81; P < .001) and failure to rescue (OR = 309.54; P < .001) in patients undergoing TEVAR.ConclusionsNationwide data for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm reveal equivalent mortality, complication rates, and failure to rescue for TEVAR and OAR but more frequent routine discharge with TEVAR. Unlike OAR outcomes, TEVAR outcomes were not poorer in smaller hospitals, where TEVAR produced fewer complications than OAR. Therefore, TEVAR may be an ideal alternative to OAR for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm, particularly in small hospitals where expertise in OAR may be lacking and immediate transfer to a higher echelon of care may not be feasible

The axial-spin technique of intracorporeal knot tying: a novel and simplified approach for junior residents.

Since its introduction, laparoscopic surgery has been limited by various factors including 2-dimensional vision and limited spatial mobility of instruments. A major limitation of conventional laparoscopic surgery is the placement of an intracorporeal knot, which requires a significant amount of training and practice. We describe a novel, easier technique of intracorporeal knot tying using a right-angled 10 mm grasper/mixter. After passing the suture through the tissue, the right-angled grasper is used to create a V-shaped configuration of the armed end of the suture while it is being stabilized distally by the needle driver in the opposite hand. The jaws of the right-angled grasper are then twisted axially using the thumb-dial, thereby converting the V-shaped configuration to that of an alpha, with the jaws of the instrument through the loop. After stabilizing the loop, the jaws of the right-angled grasper are then opened and the free end of the suture is grasped and pulled through in the appropriate direction. By rotating the thumb-dial in the opposite direction, the configuration of the knots can be varied to create slip knots or square knots. The technique involves the use of an extra component, namely the thumb-dial of the instrument. Much simpler than techniques currently in use, especially when training new surgeons, it avoids the cumbersome 3-dimensional spatial movements needed to perform conventional intracorporeal knots