Textbook outcome: A novel metric in heart transplantation outcomes

被引:1
作者
Zakko, Jason [1 ]
Premkumar, Akash [5 ]
Logan, April J. [2 ]
Sneddon, Jeffrey M. [2 ]
Brock, Guy N. [2 ]
Pawlik, Timothy M. [3 ]
Mokadam, Nahush A. [1 ]
Whitson, Bryan A. [1 ]
Lampert, Brent C. [4 ]
Washburn, William K. [2 ]
Osho, Asishana A. [6 ]
Ganapathi, Asvin M. [1 ]
Schenk, Austin D. [2 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Div Cardiac Surg, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Div Transplant Surg, 395 W 12th Ave,Suite168, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Div Surg Oncol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[4] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Div Cardiol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[5] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA USA
[6] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Div Cardiac Surg, Boston, MA USA
关键词
heart transplantation; quality improvement; textbook outcome; MANAGEMENT; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.02.019
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: Assessing heart transplant program quality using short-term survival is insufficient. We define and validate the composite metric textbook outcome and examine its association with overall survival. Methods: We identified all primary, isolated adult heart transplants in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from May 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Textbook outcome was defined as length of stay 30 days or less; ejection fraction greater than 50% during 1 -year follow-up; functional status 80% to 100% at 1 year; freedom from acute rejection, dialysis, and stroke during the index hospitalization; and freedom from graft failure, dialysis, rejection, retransplantation, and mortality during the first year post -transplant. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Factors independently associated with textbook outcome were used to create a predictive nomogram. Conditional survival at 1 year was measured. Results: A total of 24,620 patients were identified with 11,169 (45.4%, 95% confi- dence interval, 44.7-46.0) experiencing textbook outcome. Patients with textbook outcome were more likely free from preoperative mechanical support (odds ratio, 3.504, 95% confidence interval, 2.766 to 4.439,P<.001), free from preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 2.295, 95% confidence interval, 1.868-2.819, P<.001), to be not hospitalized (odds ratio, 1.264, 95% confidence interval, 1.183-1.349, P < .001), to be nondiabetic (odds ratio, 1.187, 95% confidence interval, 1.113-1.266, P < .001), and to be nonsmokers (odds ratio, 1.160, 95% confidence interval,1.097-1.228, P<.001). Patients with textbook outcome have improved long-term survival relative to patients without textbook outcome who survive at least 1 year (hazard ratio for death, 0.547, 95% confidence interval, 0.504-0.593, P <.001). Conclusions: Textbook outcome is an alternative means of examining heart transplant outcomes and is associated with long-term survival. The use of textbook outcome as an adjunctive metric provides a holistic view of patient and center outcomes. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024;167:1077-87)
引用
收藏
页码:1077 / 1087.e13
页数:24
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Is Textbook Oncologic Outcome a Valid Hospital-Quality Metric after High-Risk Surgical Oncology Procedures?
    Aquina, Christopher T.
    Hamad, Ahmad
    Becerra, Adan Z.
    Cloyd, Jordan M.
    Tsung, Allan
    Pawlik, Timothy M.
    Ejaz, Aslam
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (13) : 8028 - 8045
  • [2] Ash Arlene S., 2012, Statistical Issues in Assessing Hospital Performance
  • [3] Quality Metrics in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review
    Brett, Kendra E.
    Ritchie, Lindsay J.
    Ertel, Emily
    Bennett, Alexandria
    Knoll, Greg A.
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2018, 102 (07) : E308 - E330
  • [4] Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression
    Bursac, Zoran
    Gauss, C. Heath
    Williams, David Keith
    Hosmer, David W.
    [J]. SOURCE CODE FOR BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2008, 3 (01):
  • [5] Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery
    Busweiler, L. A. D.
    Schouwenburg, M. G.
    Henegouwen, M. I. van Berge
    Kolfschoten, N. E.
    de Jong, P. C.
    Rozema, T.
    Wijnhoven, B. P. L.
    van Hillegersberg, R.
    Wouters, M. W. J. M.
    van Sandick, J. W.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 104 (06) : 742 - 750
  • [6] Time for reform in transplant program-specific reporting: AST/ASTS transplant metrics taskforce
    Chandraker, Anil
    Andreoni, Kenneth A.
    Gaston, Robert S.
    Gill, John
    Locke, Jayme E.
    Mathur, Amit K.
    Norman, Douglas J.
    Patzer, Rachel E.
    Rana, Abbas
    Ratner, Lloyd E.
    Schold, Jesse D.
    Pruett, Timothy L.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 19 (07) : 1888 - 1895
  • [7] OPTN/SRTR 2020 Annual Data Report: Heart
    Colvin, M.
    Smith, J. M.
    Ahn, Y.
    Skeans, M. A.
    Messick, E.
    Goff, R.
    Bradbrook, K.
    Foutz, J.
    Israni, A. K.
    Snyder, J. J.
    Kasiske, B. L.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 22 : 350 - 437
  • [8] Textbook Outcome Definition and Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Lung Transplantation
    Halpern, Samantha E.
    Moris, Dimitrios
    Gloria, Jared N.
    Shaw, Brian I.
    Haney, John C.
    Klapper, Jacob A.
    Barbas, Andrew S.
    Hartwig, Matthew G.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2023, 277 (02) : 350 - 357
  • [9] Definition and Analysis of Textbook Outcome: A Novel Quality Measure in Kidney Transplantation
    Halpern, Samantha E.
    Moris, Dimitrios
    Shaw, Brian I.
    Kesseli, Samuel J.
    Samoylova, Mariya L.
    Manook, Miriam
    Schmitz, Robin
    Collins, Bradley H.
    Sanoff, Scott L.
    Ravindra, Kadiyala V.
    Sudan, Debra L.
    Knechtle, Stuart J.
    Ellis, Matthew J.
    McElroy, Lisa M.
    Barbas, Andrew S.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 45 (05) : 1504 - 1513
  • [10] Measuring Transplant Center Performance: the Goals Are Not Controversial but the Methods and Consequences Can Be
    Jay C.
    Schold J.D.
    [J]. Current Transplantation Reports, 2017, 4 (1) : 52 - 58