[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Original Investigation
December 18, 2019

Utility of 90-Day Mortality vs 30-Day Mortality as a Quality Metric for Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(2):156-165. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4657
Key Points

Question  What is the validity of 90-day mortality as a hospital performance metric for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement?

Findings  This cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries found that evaluation of hospital performance based on 30-day mortality may underestimate outcomes and therefore substantially misrepresent institutional performance after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement compared with 90-day mortality, even after risk adjustment. Capturing 90-day events was also more robustly informative regarding expected 1-year outcomes.

Meaning  Although 30-day mortality has been validated, 90-day mortality may be a more reliable outcome metric for measuring hospital performance and capturing procedure-related mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Abstract

Importance  Questions have recently arisen as to whether 30-day mortality is a reasonable metric for understanding institutional practice differences after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Objective  To examine the utility of 30-day vs 90-day mortality after TAVR and SAVR as a mortality quality metric.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This nationally representative, multicenter, cohort study analyzed data from Medicare beneficiaries undergoing TAVR and SAVR procedures from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and other heart valve or other major open-heart procedures were excluded. Hospitals that performed fewer than 50 TAVR or 70 SAVR procedures per year were excluded to ensure reliable estimates and to reduce the risks of inflated results because of small institutional sample sizes. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2019.

Exposures  Hospitals were ranked into top- (10%), middle- (80%), and bottom-performing (10%) groups based on their 4-year mean 30-day mortality.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Changes in hospital performance rankings at 90 days and 1 year and correlation of 30- and 90-day mortality with 1-year mortality were examined.

Results  A total of 30 329 TAVR admissions at 184 hospitals and 26 021 SAVR admissions at 191 hospitals were evaluated. For TAVR, 40 hospitals (21.7%) changed performance rankings at 90 days: 13 (48.1%) in the top-performing group and 8 (29.6%) in the bottom-performing group. At 1 year, 56 hospitals (30.4%), which included 21 (77.8%) in the top-performing group and 12 (44.4%) in the bottom-performing group, changed rankings. Similar findings were observed for SAVR, with an overall 90-day conversion rate of 17.3% and a 1-year rate of 30.3%. These findings persisted after adjusting for the differences in patient risk profiles among the 3 groups. Capturing 90-day events was also more robustly informative regarding expected 1-year outcomes after both TAVR and SAVR, largely owing to the observed plateau in the instantaneous hazard observed beyond this point.

Conclusions and Relevance  The findings suggest that evaluation of hospital performance based on 30-day mortality may underestimate outcomes and therefore substantially misrepresent institutional performance after TAVR and SAVR compared with 90-day mortality, even after risk adjustment. Although 30-day mortality has been validated, 90-day mortality may be a more reliable outcome metric for measuring hospital performance and capturing procedure-related mortality.

×