Li, Shuang

Objective Multiple-valve (MUV) procedures currently exhibit higher operative mortality than do single-valve procedures, but a paucity of scientific information exists to explain the observation. This topic was examined using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. Methods All patients in the The Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set undergoing valve surgery (except pulmonary valve and aortic root operations) from 1993 through 2007 were identified (N = 623,039). Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were contrasted between all seven combinations of single-valve and MUV procedures involving aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves. Seven independent logistic regression analyses were performed, based on the seven procedures, and multivariable risk factors for mortality were compared, with emphasis on single-valve versus MUV procedures. Results Baseline characteristics for MUV procedures (n = 67,926) shared many similarities to those for single-valve procedures (n = 555,113), including age, ejection fraction, and comorbidities. Preoperative renal failure, New York Heart Association class III to IV, nonelective presentation, and reoperation were slightly more common in MUV subsets, and coronary bypass was less frequent. Operative mortality was almost double for MUV as compared with single-valve procedures (10.7% vs 5.7%, P = 0.0001). Categorical predictors with the largest odds ratios for mortality were emergency status, renal failure, and second reoperation. However, predictors for mortality were generally consistent in order and magnitude between the single-valve and MUV subgroups. Conclusions Despite similarities in preoperative profiles of the patients undergoing single-valve and MUV procedures, mortality for MUV surgery remains considerably higher. Determinants of operative mortality and morbidity differ little across the procedural groups, and these findings serve as a benchmark for future studies, as well as suggest a continued search for explanations of poorer MUV outcomes.

Background— Current risk models predict in-hospital mortality after either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary interventions separately, yet the overlap suggests that the same variables can define the risks of alternative coronary reperfusion therapies. Our goal was to seek a preprocedure risk model that can predict in-hospital mortality after either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods and Results— We tested the ability of the recently validated, integer-based Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS) for percutaneous coronary intervention, which is based solely on preprocedure variables (age, creatinine, ejection fraction, myocardial infarction ≤24 hours, shock, congestive heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease), to predict in-hospital mortality among 370 793 patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery from 2004 to 2006. For the Society of Thoracic Surgeons coronary artery bypass graft surgery population studied, the median age was 66 years (quartiles 1 to 3, 57 to 74 years), with 37.2% of patients ≥70 years old. A high prevalence of comorbid conditions, including diabetes mellitus (37.1%), hypertension (80.5%), peripheral vascular disease (15.3%), and renal disease (creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL; 11.8%), was present. A strong association existed between the MCRS and the observed mortality in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. The in-hospital mortality ranged between 0.3% (95% confidence interval 0.3% to 0.4%) with a score of 0 on the MCRS and 33.8% (95% confidence interval 27.3% to 40.3%) with an MCRS score of 20 to 24. The discriminatory ability of the MCRS was moderate, as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-statistic=0.715 to 0.784 among various subgroups); performance was inferior to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons model for most categories tested. Conclusions— This model, which is based on 7 preprocedure risk variables, may be useful for providing patients with individualized, evidence-based estimates of procedural risk as part of the informed consent process before percutaneous or surgical revascularization.