0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sex Disparities After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Hospital Quality

      research-article
      , MD, MSc 1 , 2 , 3 , , , MD, MSc 2 , 3
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is the sex outcomes disparity for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing high-risk surgery associated with the quality of hospital where beneficiaries receive care?

          Findings

          In this retrospective cohort study of 444 855 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, female patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were more likely to receive care at low-quality hospitals where the sex disparity in mortality doubled that of high-quality hospitals.

          Meaning

          Quality improvement targeting low-quality hospitals as well as equitable referral of female beneficiaries to higher-quality hospitals may narrow the sex disparity after coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Abstract

          This cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries evaluates the association between hospital quality and sex disparities in mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Concern has been raised about persistent sex disparities after coronary artery bypass grafting, with female patients having higher mortality. However, whether these disparities persist across hospitals of different qualities is unknown.

          Objective

          To evaluate sex disparities in 30-day mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting across high- and low-quality hospitals.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional, retrospective cohort study evaluated Medicare beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting between October 1, 2015, and March 31, 2020. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2023, to December 1, 2023.

          Exposures

          The primary exposures were hospital quality and sex. For hospital quality, hospitals were placed into rank order by their overall risk-adjusted mortality rate and divided into quintiles.

          Main Outcome and Measures

          Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality using a logistic regression model accounting for patient factors, including sex, age, comorbidities, elective vs unplanned admission, number of bypass grafts, use of arterial graft, and year of surgery.

          Results

          A total of 444 855 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [7.5] years; 120 333 [27.1%] female and 324 522 [72.9%] male) were studied. Compared with male beneficiaries, female beneficiaries were more likely to have an unplanned admission (66 425 [55.2%] vs 157 895 [48.7%], P < .001) and receive care at low-quality (vs high-quality) hospitals (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.29; P < .001). Overall, risk-adjusted female mortality was 4.24% (95% CI, 4.20%-4.27%), and male mortality was 2.75% (95% CI, 2.75%-2.77%), with an absolute difference of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.45-1.51) percentage points ( P < .001). At the highest-quality hospitals, male mortality was 1.57% (95% CI, 1.56%-1.59%), and female mortality was 2.58% (95% CI, 2.54%-2.62%), with an absolute difference of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04) percentage points ( P < .001). At the lowest-quality hospitals, male mortality was 4.94% (95% CI, 4.88%-5.01%), and female mortality was 7.02% (95% CI, 6.90%-7.13%), with an absolute difference of 2.07 (95% CI, 1.95-2.19) percentage points ( P < .001). Female beneficiaries receiving care at low-quality hospitals had a higher mortality than male beneficiaries receiving care at the high-quality hospitals (7.02% vs 1.57%, P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, female beneficiaries were more likely to receive care at low-quality hospitals, where the sex disparity in mortality was double that of high-quality hospitals. Quality improvement targeting low-quality hospitals as well as equitable referral of female beneficiaries to higher-quality hospitals may narrow the sex disparity after coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

          This study attempts to develop a comprehensive set of comorbidity measures for use with large administrative inpatient datasets. The study involved clinical and empirical review of comorbidity measures, development of a framework that attempts to segregate comorbidities from other aspects of the patient's condition, development of a comorbidity algorithm, and testing on heterogeneous and homogeneous patient groups. Data were drawn from all adult, nonmaternal inpatients from 438 acute care hospitals in California in 1992 (n = 1,779,167). Outcome measures were those commonly available in administrative data: length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital death. A comprehensive set of 30 comorbidity measures was developed. The comorbidities were associated with substantial increases in length of stay, hospital charges, and mortality both for heterogeneous and homogeneous disease groups. Several comorbidities are described that are important predictors of outcomes, yet commonly are not measured. These include mental disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity, coagulopathy, weight loss, and fluid and electrolyte disorders. The comorbidities had independent effects on outcomes and probably should not be simplified as an index because they affect outcomes differently among different patient groups. The present method addresses some of the limitations of previous measures. It is based on a comprehensive approach to identifying comorbidities and separates them from the primary reason for hospitalization, resulting in an expanded set of comorbidities that easily is applied without further refinement to administrative data for a wide range of diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

            The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

              Although numerous studies suggest that there is an inverse relation between hospital volume of surgical procedures and surgical mortality, the relative importance of hospital volume in various surgical procedures is disputed. Using information from the national Medicare claims data base and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we examined the mortality associated with six different types of cardiovascular procedures and eight types of major cancer resections between 1994 and 1999 (total number of procedures, 2.5 million). Regression techniques were used to describe relations between hospital volume (total number of procedures performed per year) and mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients. Mortality decreased as volume increased for all 14 types of procedures, but the relative importance of volume varied markedly according to the type of procedure. Absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals ranged from over 12 percent (for pancreatic resection, 16.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent) to only 0.2 percent (for carotid endarterectomy, 1.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent). The absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals were greater than 5 percent for esophagectomy and pneumonectomy, 2 to 5 percent for gastrectomy, cystectomy, repair of a nonruptured abdominal aneurysm, and replacement of an aortic or mitral valve, and less than 2 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, lower-extremity bypass, colectomy, lobectomy, and nephrectomy. In the absence of other information about the quality of surgery at the hospitals near them, Medicare patients undergoing selected cardiovascular or cancer procedures can significantly reduce their risk of operative death by selecting a high-volume hospital.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                11 June 2024
                June 2024
                11 June 2024
                : 7
                : 6
                : e2414354
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Clinician Scholar’s Program, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [2 ]Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 14, 2024.
                Published: June 11, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.14354
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Wagner CM et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Catherine M. Wagner, MD, MSc, Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Bldg 16, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ( cmgilb@ 123456med.umich.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Wagner and Ibrahim had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Both authors.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Wagner.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.
                Statistical analysis: Wagner.
                Supervision: Ibrahim.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wagner reported receiving salary support from the National Clinician Scholars Program, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. Dr Ibrahim reporting receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi240492
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.14354
                11167499
                38861261
                e7da2c3a-b8c0-4455-8592-294f1709903b
                Copyright 2024 Wagner CM et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 28 December 2023
                : 14 March 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

                Comments

                Comment on this article