Defining value in cardiac surgery: A contemporary analysis of cost variation across the United States

Abstract

ObjectiveIsolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement are common cardiac operations performed in the United States and serve as platforms for benchmarking. The present national study characterized hospital-level variation in costs and value for coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement. MethodsAdults undergoing elective, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Center quality was defined by the proportion of patients without an adverse outcome (death, stroke, respiratory failure, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and reoperation). High-value hospitals were defined as those with observed-to-expected ratios less than 1 for costs and greater than 1 for quality, whereas the converse defined low-value centers. ResultsOf 318,194 patients meeting study criteria, 71.9% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 28.1% underwent aortic valve replacement. Variation in hospital-level costs was evident, with median center-level cost of $36,400 (interquartile range, 29,500-46,700) for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and $38,400 (interquartile range, 32,300-47,700) for aortic valve replacement. Observed-to-expected ratios for quality ranged from 0.2 to 10.9 for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 0.1 to 11.7 for isolated aortic valve replacement. Hospital factors, including volume and quality, contributed to approximately 9.9% and 11.2% of initial cost variation for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement. High-value centers had greater cardiac surgery operative volume and were more commonly teaching hospitals compared to low-value centers, but had similar patient risk profiles. ConclusionsSignificant variation in hospital costs, quality, and value exists for 2 common cardiac operations. Center volume was associated with value and partly accounts for variation in costs. Our findings suggest the need for value-based care paradigms to reduce expenditures and optimize outcomes.