Key result
The authors question a previous study's conclusion that complication rates should not be used to judge CABG quality of care, citing flawed definitions of postoperative complications.
This letter challenges the use of complication rates as a standalone metric for hospital quality in CABG surgery, highlighting the need for better definitions.
To the Editor. —Dr Silber and colleagues1strongly recommend that complication rates in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery should not be used to judge hospital quality of care. We have serious concerns about the validity of this conclusion because of several limitations in their study. First, we question both the definitions and rates of complications noted in the study. Their conceptualization of postoperative complications for CABG surgery appears flawed. It is important to distinguish between complications that are common sequelae of patients' illness (eg, congestive heart failure) and those that are more likely to result from substandard care (eg, deep wound infection). Despite the authors' definition of a complication as "a finding not noted on admission, but present after the second hospital day or during or after surgery," clinical conditions present before CABG surgery (eg, hypotension, congestive heart failure, and cardiac emergency) that are preoperative risk factors could
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennifer Daley (1995) conducted a letter in Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The authors question a previous study's conclusion that complication rates should not be used to judge CABG quality of care, citing flawed definitions of postoperative complications.