Advertisement

Relationship between routine multi-detector cardiac computed tomographic angiography prior to reoperative cardiac surgery, length of stay, and hospital charges

  • Matthew A. GoldsteinEmail author
  • Sion K. Roy
  • Shinivas Hebsur
  • Gabriel Maluenda
  • Gaby Weissman
  • Guy Weigold
  • Marc J. Landsman
  • Peter C. Hill
  • Francisco Pita
  • Paul J. Corso
  • Steven W. Boyce
  • Augusto D. Pichard
  • Ron Waksman
  • Allen J. Taylor
Original Paper

Abstract

While multi-detector cardiac computed tomography angiography (MDCCTA) prior to reoperative cardiac surgery (RCS) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes, its impact on hospital charges and length of stay remains unclear. We studied 364 patients undergoing RCS at Washington Hospital Center between 2004 and 2008, including 137 clinically referred for MDCCTA. Baseline demographics, procedural data, and perioperative outcomes were recorded at the time of the procedure. The primary clinical endpoint was the composite of perioperative death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hemorrhage-related reoperation. Secondary clinical endpoints included surgical procedural variables and the perioperative volume of bleeding and transfusion. Length of stay was determined using the hospital’s electronic medical record. Cost data were extracted from the hospital’s billing summary. Analysis was performed on individual categories of care, as well as on total hospital charges. Data were compared between subjects with and without MDCCTA, after adjustment for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. MDCCTA was associated with shorter procedural times, shorter intensive care unit stays, fewer blood transfusions, and less frequent perioperative MI. There was additionally a trend towards a lower incidence of the primary endpoint (17.5 vs. 24.2 %, p = 0.13) primarily due to a lower incidence of perioperative MI (0 vs. 5.7 %, p = 0.002). MDCCTA was also associated with lower median recovery room [$1,325 (1,250–3,302) vs. $3,217 (1,325–5,353) p < 0.001] and nursing charges [$6,335 (3,623–10,478) vs. $6,916 (3,915–14,499) p = 0.03], although operating room charges were higher [$24,100 (22,300–29,700) vs. $23,500 (19,900–27,700) p < 0.05]. Median total charges [$127,000 (95,000–188,000) vs. $123,000 (86,800–226,000) p = 0.77] and length of stay [9 days (6–19) vs. 11 days (7–19), p = 0.21] were similar. Means analysis demonstrated a strong trend towards lower mean total hospital charges [$163,000 (108,426) vs. $192,000 (181,706), p = 0.06] in the MDCCTA group. In conclusion, preoperative MDCCTA is associated with a number of improved perioperative outcomes and does not significantly effect the length of stay or total hospital charges during the index hospitalization.

Keywords

Reoperative cardiac surgery Multi-detector computed tomographic Outcomes Length of stay Comparison of hospital charges 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O’Gara P, Rubin GD, ACCF/SSCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNCE/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR (2010) Appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 56(22):1864–1894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maluenda G, Goldstein MA, Lemesle G, Weissman G, Weigold G, Landsman MJ, Hill PC, Pita F, Corso PJ, Boyce SW, Pichard AD, Waksman R, Taylor AJ (2010) Perioperative outcomes in reoperative cardiac surgery guided by cardiac multidetector computed tomographic angiography. Am Heart J 159(2):301–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2009) Growth in national health expenditures expected to slow by 2009 as a result of recession. Press release February 24, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Heart Association (2009) Cardiovascular diseases in the United States: 2009. Annual reportGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salomon NW, Page US, Bigelow JC, Krause AH, Okies JE, Metzdorff MT (1990) Reoperative coronary surgery. Comparative analysis of 6,591 patients undergoing primary bypass and 508 patients undergoing reoperative coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 100:250–259; discussion 259–260Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Craver JM, Grosswald R, Guyton RA (1995) In-hospital and long-term outcome after reoperative coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 92:II50–II57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yau TM, Borger MA, Weisel RD, Ivanov J (2000) The changing pattern of reoperative coronary surgery: trends in 1,230 consecutive reoperations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120:156–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao V, Ivanov J, Weisel RD, Ikonomidis JS, Christakis GT, David TE (1996) Predictors of low cardiac output syndrome after coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112:38–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapira I, Isakov A, Heller I, Topilsky M, Pines A (1999) Long-term follow-up after coronary artery bypass grafting reoperation. Chest 115:1593–1597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dobell AR, Jain AK (1984) Catastrophic hemorrhage during redo sternotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 37:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Eck FM, Noyez L, Verheugt FW, Brouwer RM (2002) Changing profile of patients undergoing redo-coronary artery surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 21:205–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR et al (2006) Appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1475–1497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlosser T, Konorza T, Hunold P, Kuhl H, Schmermund A, Barkhausen J (2004) Noninvasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector row computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1224–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gasparovic H, Rybicki FJ, Millstine J et al (2005) Three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging in planning the surgical approach for redo cardiac surgery after coronary revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 28:244–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aviram G, Sharony R, Kramer A, Nesher N, Loverman D, Ben-Gal Y, Graif M, Uretzky G, Mohr R (2005) Modification of surgical planning based on cardiac multidetector computed tomography in reoperative heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 79(2):589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akhtar NJ, Markowitz AH, Gilkeson RC (2010) Multidetector computed tomography in the preoperative assessment of cardiac surgery patients. Radiol Clin North Am 48(1):117–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew A. Goldstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sion K. Roy
    • 3
  • Shinivas Hebsur
    • 3
  • Gabriel Maluenda
    • 1
  • Gaby Weissman
    • 1
  • Guy Weigold
    • 1
  • Marc J. Landsman
    • 1
  • Peter C. Hill
    • 2
  • Francisco Pita
    • 2
  • Paul J. Corso
    • 2
  • Steven W. Boyce
    • 2
  • Augusto D. Pichard
    • 1
  • Ron Waksman
    • 1
  • Allen J. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Cardiology, Department of MedicineWashington Hospital CenterWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cardiac SurgeryWashington Hospital CenterWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineGeorgetown University HospitalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations