Advertisement

Technical Performance Score Predicts Perioperative Outcomes in Complex Congenital Heart Surgery Performed in a Small-to-Medium-Volume Program

  • Entela B. Lushaj
  • Heather L. Bartlett
  • Luke J. Lamers
  • Shannon Arndt
  • Joshua Hermsen
  • J. Carter Ralphe
  • Petros V. AnagnostopoulosEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

As the quality of surgical outcomes depend on many factors, the development of validated tools to assess the different aspects of complex multidisciplinary teams’ performance is crucial. The Technical Performance Score (TPS) has only been validated to correlate with outcomes in large-volume surgical programs. Here we assess the utility of TPS in correlation to perioperative outcomes for complex congenital heart surgeries (CHS) performed in a small-to-medium-volume program. 673 patients underwent CHS from 4/2012 to 12/2017 at our institution. Of those, 122 were STAT 4 and STAT 5. TPS was determined for each STAT 4 and STAT 5 operation using discharge echocardiogram: 1 = optimal, 2 = adequate, 3 = inadequate. Patient outcomes were compared including mortality, length of stay, ventilation times, and adverse events. 69 patients (57%) were neonates, 32 (26%) were infants, 17 (14%) were children, 4 (3%) were adults. TPS class 1 was assigned to 85 (70%) operations, TPS class 2 was assigned to 25 (20%) operations, and TPS class 3 was assigned to 12 (10%) operations. TPS was associated with re-intubation, ICU length of stay, postoperative length of stay, and mortality. TPS did not correlate with unplanned 30-day readmissions, need for reoperation, and inotropic score. Technical performance score was associated with perioperative outcomes and is a useful tool to assess the adequacy of repair for high complexity CHS in a small-to-medium-volume surgical program. TPS should be a part of program review in congenital heart programs of all sizes to identify strategies that may reduce postoperative morbidity and potentially improve long-term outcomes.

Keywords

Small-to-medium-volume program Outcomes Performance score 

Notes

Funding

This work was funded by the University of Wisconsin, Department of Surgery.

Compliance with Ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of the presented manuscript or other conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    STS.org (2016) STS. Congenital Heart Surgery Data SummaryGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barach P, Johnson JK, Ahmad A et al (2008) A prospective observational study of human factors, adverse events, and patient outcomes in surgery for pediatric cardiac disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:1422–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karamichalis JM, Thiagarajan RR, Liu H, Mamic P, Gauvreau K, Bacha EA (2010) Stage I Norwood: optimal technical performance improves outcomes irrespective of preoperative physiologic status or case complexity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:962–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Leval MR, Carthey J, Wright DJ, Farewell VT, Reason JT (2000) Human factors and cardiac surgery: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karamichalis JM, Colan SD, Nathan M et al (2012) Technical performance scores in congenital cardiac operations: a quality assessment initiative. Ann Thorac Surg 94:1317–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karamichalis JM, del Nido PJ, Thiagarajan RR et al (2011) Early postoperative severity of illness predicts outcomes after the stage I Norwood procedure. Ann Thorac Surg 92:660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nathan M, Marshall AC, Kerstein J et al (2014) Technical performance score as predictor for post-discharge reintervention in valve-sparing tetralogy of Fallot repair. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nathan M, Pigula FA, Liu H et al (2013) Inadequate technical performance scores are associated with late mortality and late reintervention. Ann Thorac Surg 96:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nathan M, Karamichalis JM, Liu H et al (2011) Intraoperative adverse events can be compensated by technical performance in neonates and infants after cardiac surgery: a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142:1098–1107 (1107.e1091–1095)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douglas PS, DeCara JM, Devereux RB, Duckworth S, Gardin JM, Jaber WA, Morehead AJ, Oh JK, Picard MP, Solomon SD, Wei K, Weissman NJ (2009) Echocardiographic imaging in clinical trials: American Society of Echocardiography Standards for Echocardiography Core Laboratories. Am Soc Echocardiogr 22(7):755–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larrazabal LA, del Nido PJ, Jenkins KJ et al (2007) Measurement of technical performance in congenital heart surgery: a pilot study. Ann Thorac Surg 83:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen E (2015) Babies die; hospital halts heart surgeries. https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/03/health/kentucky-hearts-hospital/index.html. Accessed Aug 2015
  13. 13.
    Cohen E (2015) Secret deaths: CNN finds high surgical death rate for children at a Florida hospital. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/health/st-marys-medical-center/index.html. Accessed 15 June 2015
  14. 14.
    Dyer C (2001) Bristol inquiry condemns hospital's "club culture". BMJ 323:181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox R (2001) Bristol scandal. Circulation 104:E9014Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabler E (2019) Doctors Were Alarmed: ‘Would I Have My Children Have Surgery Here?’. May 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/30/us/children-heart-surgery-cardiac.html
  17. 17.
    Kalfa D, Chai P, Bacha E (2014) Surgical volume-to-outcome relationship and monitoring of technical performance in pediatric cardiac surgery. Pediatr Cardiol 35:899–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pasquali SK (2017) Optimizing public reporting of congenital heart surgery outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 104:16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burki S, Fraser CD (2016) Larger centers may produce better outcomes: is regionalization in congenital heart surgery a superior model? Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 19:10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Danton MH (2016) Larger centers produce better outcomes in pediatric cardiac surgery: regionalization is a superior model—the con prospective. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 19:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karamlou T, Jacobs ML, Pasquali S et al (2014) Surgeon and center volume influence on outcomes after arterial switch operation: analysis of the STS Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 98:904–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gauvreau K (2007) Reevaluation of the volume-outcome relationship for pediatric cardiac surgery. Circulation 115:2599–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Preston L, Turner J, Booth A et al (2015) Is there a relationship between surgical case volume and mortality in congenital heart disease services? A rapid evidence review. BMJ Open 5:9252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bacha EA, Larrazabal LA, Pigula FA et al (2008) Measurement of technical performance in surgery for congenital heart disease: the stage I Norwood procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:993–997 (997. e991–992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery-Cardiothoracic, School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics-Cardiology, School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin Hospital and ClinicsMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations