Impact of a quality improvement initiative with a dedicated anesthesia team on outcomes after surgery for adult congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives A quality improvement initiative was introduced to the adult congenital cardiac surgery program at Toronto General Hospital in January 2016. A dedicated Adult Congenital Anesthesia and intensive care unit team was introduced within the cardiac group. The use of factor concentrates was introduced. The study compares perioperative mortality, adverse events, and transfusion burden before and after this process change. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all adult congenital cardiac surgeries from January 2004 to July 2019. Two groups were analyzed: patients undergoing operation before and after 2016. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. One-year mortality and prevalence of key morbidities were analyzed as secondary outcomes. A separate analysis looked at patients who had and had not attended an anesthesia-led preassessment clinic. Results In-hospital mortality was significantly reduced in patients undergoing operation after 2016 (1.1% vs 4.3%, P = .003) despite a higher risk profile. One-year mortality (1.3% vs 5.8%, P = .003) and ventilation times (5.5 hours [3.4-13.0] vs 6.3 hours [4.2-16.2], P = .001) were also reduced. The incidence of stroke and renal failure was similar between groups. Blood product exposure was comparable, but the incidence of chest reopening decreased (1.8% vs 4.8%, P = .022), despite more patients with multiple previous chest wall incisions, on anticoagulation, and with more complex cardiac anatomy. There were no significant outcome differences between those who did or did not attend the preassessment clinic. Conclusions Both in-hospital and 1-year mortality were significantly reduced after the introduction of a quality improvement program, despite a higher risk profile. Blood product exposure remained unchanged, but there were less chest reopenings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".