Potential benefits and consequences of public reporting of pediatric cardiac surgery outcomes

Comparing apples to apples: Exploring public reporting of congenital cardiac surgery outcomes based on common congenital heart operations

OBJECTIVE

We sought to simplify reporting of outcomes in congenital heart surgery that compares well-defined patient groups and accommodates multiple stakeholder needs while being easily understandable.

METHODS

We selected 19 commonly performed congenital heart surgeries ranging in complexity from repair of atrial septal defects to the Norwood procedure. Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria ensured the creation of 19 well-defined diagnosis/procedure cohorts. Preoperative, procedural, and postoperative data were collected for consecutive eligible patients from 9 centers between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Unadjusted operative mortality rates and hospital length of stay for each of the 19 diagnosis/procedure cohorts were summarized in aggregate and stratified by each center.

RESULTS

Of 8572 eligible cases included, numbers in the 19 diagnosis/procedure cohorts ranged from 73 for tetralogy of Fallot repair after previous palliation to 1224 for ventricular septal defect (VSD) repair for isolated VSD. In aggregate, the unadjusted mortality ranged from 0% for atrial septal defect repair to 28.4% for hybrid stage I. There was significant heterogeneity in case mix and mortality for different diagnosis/procedure cohorts across centers (eg, arterial switch operation/VSD, n = 7-42, mortality 0%-7.4%; Norwood procedure, n = 16-122, mortality 5.3%-25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of institutional case volumes and outcomes within well-defined diagnosis/procedure cohorts can enable centers to benchmark outcomes, understand trends in mortality, and direct quality improvement. When made public, this type of report could provide parents with information on institutional volumes and outcomes and allow them to better understand the experience of each program with operations for specific congenital heart defects.

The Use of STS Public Reporting to Guide Referrals in Congenital Heart Surgery: Results of a Survey

BACKGROUND

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) public reporting in congenital heart surgery has received considerable attention; however, it's unclear how pediatric cardiac providers use these data to guide surgical referrals.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery and PediHeart.Net members regarding use of STS public reporting.

RESULTS

There were 155 respondents (90% cardiologist, 7% surgeons) from approximately 800 solicitations (∼19% response rate). While most (83%) felt that STS public reporting is important, 60% are unsure of its accuracy and only 37% find it useful in practice. Most (71%) believe STS public reporting leads to risk aversion. Overall, 92% answered STS public reporting rarely or never overrides other factors determining referrals. Compared to smaller centers (<300 cases/year), providers in larger centers were more likely to report that STS public reporting data never overrides other factors determining referrals (54% vs. 32%, p=0.03). Providers using STS public reporting to guide referrals (14% overall) trust the system's accuracy (p=0.03) and believe it presents useful outcomes (p<0.01). There was no correlation between use of STS public reporting to guide referrals and practice size, type,location,time in practice, surgical center affiliation, or center volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers believe that public reporting of outcomes is important; however, most do not use the data to guide surgical referrals. Understanding these limitations of the current STS public reporting may enable change and increased usefulness for providers.

National Variation in Congenital Heart Surgery Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Optimal strategies to improve national congenital heart surgery outcomes and reduce variability across hospitals remain unclear. Many policy and quality improvement efforts have focused primarily on higher-risk patients and mortality alone. Improving our understanding of both morbidity and mortality and current variation across the spectrum of complexity would better inform future efforts.

METHODS

Hospitals participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (2014-2017) were included. Case mix-adjusted operative mortality, major complications, and postoperative length of stay were evaluated using Bayesian models. Hospital variation was quantified by the interdecile ratio (IDR, upper versus lower 10%) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Stratified analyses were performed by risk group (Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery [STAT] category) and simulations evaluated the potential impact of reductions in variation.

RESULTS

A total of 102 hospitals (n=84 407) were included, representing ≈85% of US congenital heart programs. STAT category 1 to 3 (lower risk) operations comprised 74% of cases. All outcomes varied significantly across hospitals: adjusted mortality by 3-fold (upper versus lower decile 5.0% versus 1.6%, IDR 3.1 [95% CrI 2.5-3.7]), mean length of stay by 1.8-fold (19.2 versus 10.5 days, IDR 1.8 [95% CrI 1.8-1.9]), and major complications by >3-fold (23.5% versus 7.0%, IDR 3.4 [95% CrI 3.0-3.8]). The degree of variation was similar or greater for low- versus high-risk cases across outcomes, eg, ≈3-fold mortality variation across hospitals for STAT 1 to 3 (IDR 3.0 [95% CrI 2.1-4.2]) and STAT 4 or 5 (IDR 3.1 [95% CrI 2.4-3.9]) cases. High-volume hospitals had less variability across outcomes and risk categories. Simulations suggested potential reductions in deaths (n=282), major complications (n=1539), and length of stay (101 183 days) over the 4-year study period if all hospitals were to perform at the current median or better, with 37% to 60% of the improvement related to the STAT 1 to 3 (lower risk) group across outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate significant hospital variation in morbidity and mortality after congenital heart surgery. Contrary to traditional thinking, a substantial portion of potential improvements that could be realized on a national scale were related to variability among lower-risk cases. These findings suggest modifications to our current approaches to optimize care and outcomes in this population are needed.

Failure to Rescue as an Outcome Metric for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Programs: Analysis of Data From the IMPACT Registry

Background

Risk‐adjusted adverse event (AE) rates have been used to measure the quality of pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratories. In other settings, failure to rescue (FTR) has demonstrated utility as a quality metric.

Methods and Results

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the IMPACT (Improving Adult and Congenital Treatment) Registry between January 2010 and December 2016. A modified FTR metric was developed for pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratories and then compared with pooled AEs. The associations between patient‐ and hospital‐level factors and outcomes were evaluated using hierarchical logistic regression models. Hospital risk standardized ratios were then calculated. Rankings of risk standardized ratios for each outcome were compared to determine whether AEs and FTR identified the same high‐ and low‐performing centers. During the study period, 77 580 catheterizations were performed at 91 hospitals. Higher annual hospital catheterization volume was associated with lower odds of FTR (odds ratio: 0.68 per 300 cases; P=0.0003). No association was seen between catheterization volume and odds of AEs. Odds of AEs were instead associated with patient‐ and procedure‐level factors. There was no correlation between risk standardized ratio ranks for FTR and pooled AEs (P=0.46). Hospital ranks by catheterization volume and FTR were associated (r=−0.28, P=0.01) with the largest volume hospitals having the lowest risk of FTR.

Conclusions

In contrast to AEs, FTR was not strongly associated with patient‐ and procedure‐level factors and was significantly associated with pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory volume. Hospital rankings based on FTR and AEs were not significantly correlated. We conclude that FTR is a complementary measure of catheterization laboratory quality and should be included in future research and quality‐improvement projects.