Direct comparison of risk-adjusted and non-risk-adjusted CUSUM analyses of coronary artery bypass surgery outcomes.

OBJECTIVE We previously applied non-risk-adjusted cumulative sum methods to analyze coronary bypass outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the incremental advantage of risk-adjusted cumulative sum methods in this setting. METHODS Prospective data were collected in 793 consecutive patients who underwent coronary bypass grafting performed by a single surgeon during a period of 5 years. The composite occurrence of an "adverse outcome" included mortality or any of 10 major complications. An institutional logistic regression model for adverse outcome was developed by using 2608 contemporaneous patients undergoing coronary bypass. The predicted risk of adverse outcome in each of the surgeon's 793 patients was then calculated. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve was then generated after specifying control limits and odds ratio. This risk-adjusted curve was compared with the non-risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve, and the clinical significance of this difference was assessed. RESULTS The surgeon's adverse outcome rate was 96 of 793 (12.1%) versus 270 of 1815 (14.9%) for all the other institution's surgeons combined (P = .06). The non-risk-adjusted curve reached below the lower control limit, signifying excellent outcomes between cases 164 and 313, 323 and 407, and 667 and 793, but transgressed the upper limit between cases 461 and 478. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve never transgressed the upper control limit, signifying that cases preceding and including 461 to 478 were at an increased predicted risk. Furthermore, if the risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve was reset to zero whenever a control limit was reached, it still signaled a decrease in adverse outcome at 166, 653, and 782 cases. CONCLUSIONS Risk-adjusted cumulative sum techniques provide incremental advantages over non-risk-adjusted methods by not signaling a decrement in performance when preoperative patient risk is high.