Research Spotlight

Edgerton, J. R., M. A. Herbert, B. L. Hamman and W. S. Ring (2018). “Can use of an administrative database improve accuracy of hospital-reported readmission rates?” J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155(5): 2043-2047.

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVES: Readmission rates after cardiac surgery are being used as a quality indicator; they are also being collected by Medicare and are tied to reimbursement. Accurate knowledge of readmission rates may be difficult to achieve because patients may be readmitted to different hospitals. In our area, 81 hospitals share administrative claims data; 28 of these hospitals (from 5 different hospital systems) do cardiac surgery and share Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) clinical data. We used these 2 sources to compare the readmissions data for accuracy. METHODS: A total of 45,539 STS records from January 2008 to December 2016 were matched with the hospital billing data records. Using the index visit as the start date, the billing records were queried for any subsequent in-patient visits for that patient. The billing records included date of readmission and hospital of readmission data and were compared with the data captured in the STS record. RESULTS: We found 1153 (2.5%) patients who had STS records that were marked “No” or “missing,” but there were billing records that showed a readmission. The reported STS readmission rate of 4796 (10.5%) underreported the readmission rate by 2.5 actual percentage points. The true rate should have been 13.0%. Actual readmission rate was 23.8% higher than reported by the clinical database. Approximately 36% of readmissions were to a hospital that was a part of a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to know accurate readmission rates for quality improvement processes and institutional financial planning. Matching patient records to an administrative database showed that the clinical database may fail to capture many readmissions. Combining data with an administrative database can enhance accuracy of reporting.

Damman, K., M. Gori, B. Claggett, P. S. Jhund, M. Senni, M. P. Lefkowitz, M. F. Prescott, V. C. Shi, J. L. Rouleau, K. Swedberg, M. R. Zile, M. Packer, A. S. Desai, S. D. Solomon and J. J. V. McMurray (2018). “Renal Effects and Associated Outcomes During Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure.” JACC Heart Fail. Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. METHODS: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. RESULTS: At screening, the eGFR was 70 +/- 20 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (-1.61 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year; [95% confidence interval: -1.77 to -1.44 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year] vs. -2.04 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year [95% CI: -2.21 to -1.88 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR.

Dahlquist, R. T., K. Reyner, R. D. Robinson, A. Farzad, J. Laureano-Phillips, J. S. Garrett, J. M. Young, N. R. Zenarosa and H. Wang (2018). “Standardized Reporting System Use During Handoffs Reduces Patient Length of Stay in the Emergency Department.” J Clin Med Res 10(5): 445-451.

Full text of this article.

Background: Emergency department (ED) shift handoffs are potential sources of delay in care. We aimed to determine the impact that using standardized reporting tool and process may have on throughput metrics for patients undergoing a transition of care at shift change. Methods: We performed a prospective, pre- and post-intervention quality improvement study from September 1 to November 30, 2015. A handoff procedure intervention, including a mandatory workshop and personnel training on a standard reporting system template, was implemented. The primary endpoint was patient length of stay (LOS). A comparative analysis of differences between patient LOS and various handoff communication methods were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Communication methods were entered a multivariable logistic regression model independently as risk factors for patient LOS. Results: The final analysis included 1,006 patients, with 327 comprising the pre-intervention and 679 comprising the post-intervention populations. Bedside rounding occurred 45% of the time without a standard reporting during pre-intervention and increased to 85% of the time with the use of a standard reporting system in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). Provider time (provider-initiated care to patient care completed) in the pre-intervention period averaged 297 min, but decreased to 265 min in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). After adjusting for other communication methods, the use of a standard reporting system during handoff was associated with shortened ED LOS (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.90, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Standard reporting system use during emergency physician handoffs at shift change improves ED throughput efficiency and is associated with shorter ED LOS.

Dabus, G., W. Brinjikji, A. P. Amar, J. E. Delgado Almandoz, O. M. Diaz, P. Jabbour, R. Hanel, F. Hui, M. Kelly, K. F. Layton, J. W. Miller, E. I. Levy, C. J. Moran, D. C. Suh, H. Woo, R. Sellar, B. Hoh, A. Evans and D. F. Kallmes (2018). “Angiographic and clinical outcomes of balloon remodeling versus unassisted coil embolization in the ruptured aneurysm cohort of the GEL THE NEC study.” J Neurointerv Surg 10(5): 446-450.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: GEL THE NEC (GTN) was a multicenter prospective registry developed to assess the safety and efficacy of HydroSoft coils in treating intracranial aneurysms. We compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of aneurysms treated with balloon assisted coil embolization (BACE) versus unassisted coil embolization (CE) in the ruptured aneurysm cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GTN was performed at 27 centers in five countries. Patients aged 21-90 years with a ruptured aneurysm 3-15 mm in size were eligible for enrollment. We analyzed demographics/comorbidities, aneurysm location, and geometry, including maximum diameter, neck size, and dome to neck ratio, immediate and long term angiographic outcomes (graded by an independent core laboratory using the modified Raymond Scale), and procedure related adverse events. Angiographic and clinical outcomes were studied using chi(2)and t tests. RESULTS: Of the 599 patients in the GTN, 194 met the inclusion criteria. 84 were treated with BACE and 110 with CE. There were more prior smokers in the BACE group (p=0.01). The BACE group also had more vertebrobasilar aneurysms (p=0.006) and a larger mean neck size (p=0.02). More aneurysms were immediately completely occluded in the BACE group (p=0.02) Procedure- related major morbidity and mortality were no different between the techniques (p=0.4 and p=1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective ruptured aneurysm cohort from the GTN, BACE resulted in greater occlusion rates compared with unassisted CE with similar morbi-mortality.

Charlton, M., J. Levitsky, B. Aqel, J. O’Grady, J. Hemibach, M. Rinella, J. Fung, M. Ghabril, R. Thomason, P. Burra, E. C. Little, M. Berenguer, A. Shaked, J. Trotter, J. Roberts, M. Rodriguez-Davalos, M. Rela, E. Pomfret, C. Heyrend, J. Gallegos-Orozco and F. Saliba (2018). “International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Statement on Immunosuppression in Liver Transplant Recipients.” Transplantation 102(5): 727-743.

Full text of this article.

Effective immunosupression management is central to achieving optimal outcomes in liver transplant recipients. Current immunosuppression regimens and agents are highly effective in minimizing graft loss due to acute and chronic rejection but can also produce a substantial array of toxicities. The utilization of immunosuppression varies widely, contributing to the wide disparities in posttransplant outcomes reported between transplant centers. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) convened a consensus conference, comprised of a global panel of expert hepatologists, transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and pharmacologists to review the literature and experience pertaining to immunosuppression management to develop guidelines on key aspects of immunosuppression. The consensus findings and recommendations of the ILTS Consensus guidelines on immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients are presented in this article.E