Methodology in coronary artery bypass surgery quality assessment

Zhongmin Li; Nicole Shirakawa; Amy Chen; Fu-Hai Ji; Hong Liu

doi:10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.11.006

Volume 19 Issue 11

Nov. 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Geriatric Cardiology > 2022 > 19(11): 867-875

Please cite this article as: Li ZM, Shirakawa N, Chen A, Ji FH, Liu H. Methodology in coronary artery bypass surgery quality assessment. J Geriatr Cardiol 2022; 19(11): 867−875. DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.11.006

Citation:

Please cite this article as: Li ZM, Shirakawa N, Chen A, Ji FH, Liu H. Methodology in coronary artery bypass surgery quality assessment. J Geriatr Cardiol 2022; 19(11): 867−875. DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.11.006

Citation:

PDF( 440 KB)

Methodology in coronary artery bypass surgery quality assessment

doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.11.006

1.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, USA
2.
Department of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China

Funds: This work was supported by the Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of University of California Davis Health and NIH grant UL1 TR001860 of the University of California Davis Health.

More Information

Corresponding author: hualiu@ucdavis.edu
Publish Date: 2022-11-30

Abstract

Abstract

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity; thus, assessment of surgery quality is necessary. In this perspective, we will focus on the structure, process, and outcomes measured as quality assessment. A set of 21 evidence-based structure, process, and outcome measures were selected as National Quality Forum. Of these, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons ultimately chose 11 individual quality measures grouped them into four domains used to assess the quality of CABGs. These four domains consisted of perioperative medical care, operative care, risk-adjusted operative mortality and postoperative risk-adjusted major morbidity. These measures have been useful as quality improvement tools in assessing the quality of CABG surgery.

FullText(HTML)

References(33)

References

[1]	Gaba P, Gersh BJ, Ali ZA, et al. Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol 2021; 18: 155−168. doi: 10.1038/s41569-020-00457-5
[2]	de Yé benes VG, Briones AM, Martos-Folgado I, et al. Aging-associated miR-217 aggravates atherosclerosis and promotes cardiovascular dysfunction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2020; 40: 2408−2424. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.314333
[3]	Shahian DM, Badhwar V, Kurlansky PA, et al. The STS Participant-Level, Multiprocedural Composite Measure for Adult Cardiac Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; S0003-4975(21): 01380−1.
[4]	Gaudino MFL, Spadaccio C, Taggart DP. State-of-the-art coronary artery bypass grafting: patient selection, graft selection, and optimizing outcomes. Interv Cardiol Clin 2019; 8: 173−198.
[5]	Li Z, Carlisle DM, Marcin JP, et al. Impact of public reporting on access to coronary artery bypass surgery: the california outcomes reporting program. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 1131−1138. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.12.073
[6]	Brooks C, Mori M, Shang M, et al. Center-level CABG and valve operative outcomes and volume-outcome relationships in New York State. J Card Surg 2021; 36: 653−658. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15240
[7]	Romano PS, Marcin JP, Dai JJ, et al. Impact of public reporting of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performance data on market share, mortality, and patient selection. Medical Care 2011; 49: 1118−1125. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182358c78
[8]	Dunt D, Prang K, Sabanovic H, Kelaher M. The Impact of public performance reporting on market share, mortality, and patient mix outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass grafts and percutaneous coronary interventions (2000–2016) a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Care 2018; 56: 956−966. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000990
[9]	Institute of Medicine. Performance measurement: accelerating improvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.
[10]	Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1966; 44: 166−206. doi: 10.2307/3348969
[11]	Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Cook CC. Association between surgical volume and clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting in contemporary practice. J Card Surg 2019; 34: 1049−1054. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14205
[12]	Chou YY, Hwang JJ, Tung YC. Optimal surgeon and hospital volume thresholds to reduce mortality and length of stay for CABG. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0249750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249750
[13]	Bianco V, Aranda-Michel E, Sultan I, et al. Inconsistent correlation between procedural volume and publicly reported outcomes in adult cardiac operations. J Card Surg 2019; 34: 1194−1203. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14218
[14]	Mori M, Weininger GA, Shang M, et al. Association between coronary artery bypass graft center volume and year-to-year outcome variability: New York and California statewide analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 161: 1035−1041. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.07.119
[15]	Kimmaliardjuk DM, Toeg H, Glineur D, et al. Operative mortality with coronary artery bypass graft: where do we stand in 2015? Curr Opin Cardiol 2015; 30: 611-618.
[16]	Worrall N, Brevig J, Jin R, et al. Reduction in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery mortality and morbidity during a 3-year multicenter quality improvement project. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 159: 1779−1791. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.04.083
[17]	Ferguson TB Jr, Peterson ED, Coombs LP, et al. Use of continuous quality improvement to increase use of process measures in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 49−56. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.1.49
[18]	Ferguson TB Jr, Coombs LP, Peterson ED. Preoperative beta-blocker use and mortality and morbidity following CABG surgery in North America. JAMA 2002; 287: 2221−2227. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.17.2221
[19]	Lazar HL. Role of statin therapy in the coronary bypass patient. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 730−740. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.12.041
[20]	Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1−6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198601023140101
[21]	Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Sabik JF, et al. The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 2005−2012. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.05.070
[22]	Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA 2005; 293: 1239−1244. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1239
[23]	Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care—a survey of cardiovascular specialists. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 251−256.
[24]	National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for cardiac surgery. http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/reports/cardiac.pdf (accessed Sep 6, 2006).
[25]	Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21^st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
[26]	Shahian DM, Edwards FH, Ferraris VA, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 1—Conceptual framework and measure selection. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: 3−12. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.10.053
[27]	Smith SC Jr, Allen J, Blair SN, et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 Update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2006; 113: 2363−2372. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.174516
[28]	New York State Department of Health. Adult Cardiac Surgery in New York State 2015-2017, NY: New York State Department of Health, August 2020.
[29]	New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Cardiac Surgery in New Jersey 2017-18, Health Care Quality Assessment, Office of Commissioner, August 2021.
[30]	State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The California Report on Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery 2018-2019: Hospital and Surgeon Data. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. December 12, 2021.
[31]	Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. Pennsylvania’s Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2011-2012. November 2013.
[32]	Massachusetts Data Analysis Center (MASS-DAC). Adult Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, fiscal Year 2014 Report, Department of Health Care Policy and Harvard Medical School, November 2016.
[33]	Nolan T, Berwick DM. All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. JAMA 2006; 295: 1168−1170. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.10.1168