Kumar, S. Ram

Care and outcomes for the more than 40,000 patients undergoing pediatric and congenital heart surgery in the United States annually are known to vary widely. While consensus recommendations have been published across numerous fields as one mechanism to promote a high level of care delivery across centers, it has been more than two decades since the last pediatric heart surgery recommendations were published in the United States. More recent guidance is lacking, and collaborative efforts involving the many disciplines engaged in caring for these children have not been undertaken to date. The present initiative brings together professional societies spanning numerous care domains and congenital cardiac surgeons, pediatric cardiologists, nursing, and other healthcare professionals from diverse programs around the country to develop consensus recommendations for United States centers. The focus of this initial work is on pediatric heart surgery, and it is recommended that future efforts focus in detail on the adult congenital population. We describe the background, rationale, and methodology related to this collaborative effort, and recommendations put forth for Essential Care Centers (essential services necessary for any program), and Comprehensive Care Centers (services to optimize comprehensive and high-complexity care), encompassing structure, process, and outcome metrics across 14 domains.

Objectives:Aerodigestive disorders encompass various pathological conditions affecting the lungs, upper airway, and gastrointestinal tract in children. While advanced care has primarily occurred in specialty centers, many children first present to general pediatric gastroenterologists with aerodigestive symptoms necessitating awareness of these conditions. At the 2021 Annual North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition meeting, the aerodigestive Special Interest Group held a full‐day symposium entitled, Pediatric Aerodigestive Medicine: Advancing Collaborative Care of Children with Aerodigestive Disorders. The symposium aimed to underline the significance of a multidisciplinary approach to achieve better outcomes for these complex patients.Methods:The symposium brought together leading experts to highlight the growing aerodigestive field, promote new scientific and therapeutic strategies, share the structure and benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosing common and rare aerodigestive disorders, and foster multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases while highlighting the range of therapeutic and diagnostic options. In this article, we showcase the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to oropharyngeal dysphagia (OPD), one of the most common aerodigestive conditions, emphasizing the role of a collaborative model.Conclusions:The aerodigestive field has made significant progress and continues to grow due to a unique multidisciplinary, collaborative model of care for these conditions. Despite diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, the multidisciplinary approach has enabled and greatly improved efficient, high‐quality, and evidence‐based care for patients, including those with OPD.

Objectives: STAT Mortality Categories (developed 2009) stratify congenital heart surgery procedures into groups of increasing mortality risk to characterize case mix of congenital heart surgery providers. This update of the STAT Mortality Score and Categories is empirically based for all procedures and reflects contemporary outcomes. Methods: Cardiovascular surgical operations in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (January 1, 2010 – June 30, 2017) were analyzed. In this STAT 2020 Update of the STAT Mortality Score and Categories, the risk associated with a specific combination of procedures was estimated under the assumption that risk is determined by the highest risk individual component procedure. Operations composed of multiple component procedures were eligible for unique STAT Scores when the statistically estimated mortality risk differed from that of the highest risk component procedure. Bayesian modeling accounted for small denominators. Risk estimates were rescaled to STAT 2020 Scores between 0.1 and 5.0. STAT 2020 Category assignment was designed to minimize within-category variation and maximize between-category variation. Results: Among 161,351 operations at 110 centers (19,090 distinct procedure combinations), 235 types of single or multiple component operations received unique STAT 2020 Scores. Assignment to Categories resulted in the following distribution: STAT 2020 Category 1 includes 59 procedure codes with model-based estimated mortality 0.2% to 1.3%; Category 2 includes 73 procedure codes with mortality estimates 1.4% to 2.9%; Category 3 includes 46 procedure codes with mortality estimates 3.0% to 6.8%; Category 4 includes 37 procedure codes with mortality estimates 6.9% to 13.0%; and Category 5 includes 17 procedure codes with mortality estimates 13.5% to 38.7%. The number of procedure codes with empirically derived Scores has grown by 58% (235 in STAT 2020 vs 148 in STAT 2009). Of the 148 procedure codes with empirically derived Scores in 2009, approximately one-half have changed STAT Category relative to 2009 metrics. The New STAT 2020 Scores and Categories demonstrated good discrimination for predicting mortality in an independent validation sample (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2019; sample size 46,933 operations at 108 centers) with C-statistic = 0.791 for STAT 2020 Score and 0.779 for STAT 2020 Category. Conclusions: The updated STAT metrics reflect contemporary practice and outcomes. New empirically based STAT 2020 Scores and Category designations are assigned to a larger set of procedure codes, while accounting for risk associated with multiple component operations. Updating STAT metrics based on contemporary outcomes facilitates accurate assessment of case mix.