Outcomes of Coronary Surgery at a Veterans Affairs Hospital Versus Other Hospitals

Prior Antibiotic Exposure Is Associated With Reoperation After Elective Non-colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent antibiotic exposure has previously been associated with poor outcomes following elective surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of prior recent antibiotic exposure in a multicenter cohort of Veterans Affairs patients undergoing elective non-colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program, including elective, non-cardiovascular, non-colorectal surgery from 2013 to 2017. Outpatient antibiotic exposure within 90 days prior to surgery was identified from the Veterans Affairs outpatient pharmacy database and matched with each case. Primary outcomes included serious complication, any complication, any infection, or surgical site infection. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, length of stay, and Clostridioides difficile infection.

RESULTS

Of 21,112 eligible patients, 2885 (13.7%) were exposed to antibiotics within 90 days prior to surgery with a duration of 7 (IQR: 5-10) days and prescribed 42 (IQR: 21-64) days prior to surgical intervention. Compared to non-exposed patients, exposed patients had higher unadjusted complication rates, increased length of stay, and rates of return to the operating. Exposure was independently associated with return to the operating room (OR: 1.39; 99% CI: 1.05-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Veterans, recent antibiotic exposure within 90 days of elective surgery was associated with a 39% increase in the odds of return to the operating room. Further work is needed to evaluate the effects of antibiotic exposure and dysbiosis on surgical outcomes.

Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation With Survival Among US Veterans

IMPORTANCE

Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities is low. Most veterans receive CR through purchased care at non-VA programs. However, limited literature exists on the comparison of outcomes between VA and non-VA CR programs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 1-year mortality and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization between VA vs non-VA CR participants.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included 7320 patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization at the VA between 2010 and 2014 who did not die within 30 days of discharge and who participated in 2 or more CR sessions after discharge. The study excluded individuals hospitalized for ischemic heart disease after December 2014 when the VA Choice Act changed referral criteria for non-VA care. Data analysis was performed from November 2019 to January 2020.

EXPOSURES

Participation in 2 or more CR sessions within 12 months of discharge at a VA or non-VA facility.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 1-year all-cause mortality and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization from date of discharge were compared between VA vs non-VA CR participants using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The 7320 veterans with ischemic heart disease who participated in CR programs had a mean (SD) age of 65.13 (8.17) years and were predominantly white (6005 patients [82.0%]), non-Hispanic (6642 patients [91.0%]), and male (7191 patients [98.2%]). Among these 7320 veterans, 2921 (39.9%) attended a VA facility, and 4399 (60.1%) attended a non-VA CR facility. Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to attend CR programs at VA facilities (509 patients [17.4%] and 378 patients [12.9%], respectively), whereas white veterans were more likely to attend CR programs at non-VA facilities (3759 patients [85.5%]). After inverse probability treatment weighting, rates of 1-year mortality were 1.7% among VA CR participants vs 1.3% among non-VA CR participants (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.90-1.94; P = .15). Rates of readmission for myocardial infarction or revascularization during the 12 months after discharge were 4.9% among VA CR participants vs 4.4% among non-VA CR participants (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35; P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that rates of 1-year mortality and 1-year readmission for myocardial infarction or revascularization did not differ for participants in VA vs non-VA cardiac rehabilitation programs. Eligible patients with ischemic heart disease should participate in CR programs regardless of where they are provided.

Comparison of Accessibility, Cost, and Quality of Elective Coronary Revascularization Between Veterans Affairs and Community Care Hospitals

Question

Does the Veterans Affairs Community Care Program, which allows veterans to receive care at non–Veterans Affairs sites, increase the accessibility and value of their elective coronary revascularization procedures?

Findings

Among 13 237 elective percutaneous coronary interventions and 5818 elective coronary artery bypass graft procedures in this veteran cohort study, use of the Community Care Program reduced aggregate veteran travel distance for revascularization. Community Care Program hospitals had higher mortality and costs for percutaneous coronary intervention and had equivalent mortality and lower costs for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Meaning

In our veteran cohort, use of Community Care Program hospitals improved overall access for revascularization; Community Care Program hospitals provided lower-value percutaneous coronary intervention procedures but higher-value coronary artery bypass graft procedures.

Importance

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Care (CC) Program supplements VA care with community-based medical services. However, access gains and value provided by CC have not been well described.

Objectives

To compare the access, cost, and quality of elective coronary revascularization procedures between VA and CC hospitals and to evaluate if procedural volume or publicly reported quality data can be used to identify high-value care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Observational cohort study of veterans younger than 65 years undergoing an elective coronary revascularization, controlling for differences in risk factors using propensity adjustment. The setting was VA and CC hospitals. Participants were veterans undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and veterans undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. The analysis was conducted between July 2014 and July 2017.

Exposures

Receipt of an elective coronary revascularization at a VA vs CC facility.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Access to care as measured by travel distance, 30-day mortality, and costs.

Results

In the 3 years ending on September 30, 2011, a total of 13 237 elective PCIs (79.1% at the VA) and 5818 elective CABG procedures (83.6% at the VA) were performed in VA or CC hospitals among veterans meeting study inclusion criteria. On average, use of CC was associated with reduced net travel by 53.6 miles for PCI and by 73.3 miles for CABG surgery compared with VA-only care. Adjusted 30-day mortality after PCI was higher in CC compared with VA (1.54% for CC vs 0.65% for VA, P < .001) but was similar after CABG surgery (1.33% for CC vs 1.51% for VA, P = .74). There were no differences in adjusted 30-day readmission rates for PCI (7.04% for CC vs 7.73% for VA, P = .66) or CABG surgery (8.13% for CC vs 7.00% for VA, P = .28). The mean adjusted PCI cost was higher in CC ($22 025 for CC vs $15 683 for VA, P < .001). The mean adjusted CABG cost was lower in CC ($55 526 for CC vs $63 144 for VA, P < .01). Neither procedural volume nor publicly reported mortality data identified hospitals that provided higher-value care with the exception that CABG mortality was lower in small-volume CC hospitals.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this veteran cohort, PCIs performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance but with higher mortality, higher costs, and minimal travel savings compared with VA hospitals. The CABG procedures performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance, similar mortality, and lower costs. As the VA considers expansion of the CC program, ongoing assessments of value and access gains are essential to optimize veteran outcomes and VA spending.

Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems.

METHODS

Building on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015) to identify relevant articles on the quality of care at VA facilities compared to non-VA facilities. Articles from the prior systematic review published from 2005 and onward were also included and re-abstracted. Studies were classified, analyzed, and summarized by the Institute of Medicine's quality dimensions.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions.

DISCUSSION

The VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care. Additional studies of quality of care in the VA are needed on all aspects of quality, but particularly with regard to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness.