Reevaluating Congenital Heart Surgery Center Performance Using Operative Mortality

Abstract

BackgroundThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) provides observed-to-expected (O/E) operative mortality ratios to more than 100 congenital heart centers in North America. We compared the current approach for estimating O/E ratios to approaches incorporating information on diagnosis as moderators of procedures, other unused risk factors, and additional variation in confidence interval construction to characterize center performance. MethodsBayesian additive regression trees (BART) and lasso models linked operative mortality to diagnosis-procedure categories, procedure-specific risk factors, and syndromes/abnormalities. Bootstrapping accounted for variation in the STS-CHSD (STS bootstrap) and lasso CIs. We compared O/E estimates, interquartile range of CI widths, and concordance of center performance categorizations (worse-than-, as-, or better-than-expected mortality) of the new approaches to the STS-CHSD. ResultsIn 110 surgical centers including 98,822 surgical operative encounters, there were 2818 (2.85%) operative mortalities (center range, 0.37%-10%). Compared with the STS-CHSD, BART- and lasso-estimated O/E ratios varied more and had narrower confidence intervals (interquartile range of confidence interval: STS-CHSD = 1.11, STS bootstrap = 0.98; lasso = 0.80; BART = 0.96). Concordance of performance categorization with the STS-CHSD ranged from 84% (lasso) to 91% (STS Bootstrap); more than 70% of discordant centers improved categories. Discordant centers had smaller volumes, fewer operative mortalities, and treated more patients with congenital lung abnormalities. ConclusionsRelative to the STS-CHSD, up to 16% of hospitals changed performance categories, most improving performance. Given the significance of quality reports for congenital heart centers, inclusion of additional risk factors and unaddressed variation should be considered.