Little is known about the frequency and clinical implications of postoperative atrial fibrillation in military veterans who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We examined long-term survival data, clinical outcomes, and associated risk factors in this population. We retrospectively reviewed baseline, intraoperative, and postoperative data from 1,248 consecutive patients with similar baseline risk profiles who underwent primary isolated CABG at a Veterans Affairs hospital from October 2006 through March 2013. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate long-term survival (the primary outcome measure), morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 215 patients (17.2%). Independent predictors of this sequela were age ≥65 years (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals], 1.7 [1.3-2.4] for patients of age 65-75 yr and 2.6 [1.4-4.8] for patients >75 yr) and body mass index ≥30 kg/m (2.0 [1.2-3.2]). Length of stay was longer for patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation than for those without (12.7 ± 6.6 vs 10.3 ± 8.9 d; ≤0.0001), and the respective 30-day mortality rate was higher (1.9% vs 0.4%;=0.014). Seven-year survival rates did not differ significantly. Older and obese patients are particularly at risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation after CABG. Patients who develop the sequela have longer hospital stays than, but similar long-term survival rates to, patients who do not.

Replacement of the native esophagus after esophagectomy is a problem that has challenged surgeons for over a century. Not only must the conduit be long enough to bridge the distance between the cervical esophagus and the abdomen, it must also have a reliable vascular supply and be sufficiently functional to allow for deglutition.The stomach, jejunum, and colon (right, left or transverse) have all been proposed as potential solutions.The stomach has gained favor for its length, reliable vascular supply and need for only a single anastomosis.However, there are times when the stomach is unavailable for use as a conduit. It is in these instances that an esophageal surgeon must have an alternative conduit in their armamentarium. In this paper, we will briefly discuss the technical aspects of jejunal and colonic interposition. We will review the recent literature with a focus on early and late outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of both options will be reviewed.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting of cardiac surgery ratings has been advocated to inform patient selection of hospitals. Although Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) ratings are based on audited riskadjusted patient outcomes, other rating systems rely on administrative databases. In this study, we evaluate correlation among 4 widely used hospital rating systems for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR). STUDY DESIGN: We identified an initial cohort of 602 hospitals from US News & World Report's (USN) listing of the 2016-2017 "Best Hospitals for Cardiology & Heart Surgery." From this cohort, current publicly available CABG and AVR ratings were collected from the STS, USN, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Healthgrades. All 4 rating systems rated hospitals as high, average, or below average performers for each procedure. We then determined the match rate between rating systems for individual hospitals and assessed interrater reliability with Cohen's k. RESULTS: Rating systems had different distributions of high and low performing ratings assigned. USN rated hospitals as high performing for both CABG and AVR more frequently compared with STS, Healthgrades, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. For CABG, the match rate between systems varied from 50% to 85%, with the best match between STS and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Similarly for AVR, the match rate varied from 50% to 73%, with the best match between STS and Healthgrades. Interrater reliability was poor among the 4 rating systems (k < 0.2) and consistent with no agreement for CABG and AVR ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly reported cardiac surgery ratings have significant discrepancy and poor correlation. This might confuse instead of clarify public perception of hospital quality for cardiac surgery.

No abstract