In:
Journal of the American Heart Association, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 7, No. 3 ( 2018-02-06)
Kurzfassung:
Patients with heart failure (HF) are admitted either under observation (OBS) or inpatient stays; however, there is little data on whether this designation reflects the clinical status of a patient, with significant logistical and financial implications. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients with HF admitted OBS versus inpatient stay (≤2 days; INPT). Methods and Results From January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2015, our multisite health system saw 21 339 unique patients totaling 52 493 hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of HF . Patients were excluded if they underwent cardiac surgery (n=611), heart transplantation (n=187), or left ventricular assist device insertion (n=198), or if they died during hospitalization (n=1839). Of the remaining 50 654 discharges, 2 groups were identified: INPT group and OBS group. Outcomes were HF readmission, all‐cause readmission, and all‐cause mortality within 1 year of discharge. Hazard ratios were computed using the Andersen‐Gill method in the Cox proportional‐hazards model. A total of 8709 admissions (17%) occurred in the INPT group and 2648 admissions (5%) occurred in the OBS group. HF readmission rate at 1 year was 55.3% in INPT versus 66.5% in OBS (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.80; P 〈 0.01). All‐cause readmission rate at 1 year was 70.7% in INPT versus 82.5% in OBS (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.78; P 〈 0.01). All‐cause mortality at 1 year occurred in 25.2% of INPT versus 24.2% of OBS (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.12; P =0.46). Conclusions HF admissions designated INPTs were associated with lower readmission rates and equivalent mortality to those designated OBS.
Materialart:
Online-Ressource
ISSN:
2047-9980
DOI:
10.1161/JAHA.117.007944
Sprache:
Englisch
Verlag:
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Publikationsdatum:
2018
ZDB Id:
2653953-6
