• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

充血性心力衰竭住院患者的资源利用与生存情况:主治医生专业导致的护理差异。SUPPORT研究组。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究。

Resource use and survival of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure: differences in care by specialty of the attending physician. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

作者信息

Auerbach A D, Hamel M B, Davis R B, Connors A F, Regueiro C, Desbiens N, Goldman L, Califf R M, Dawson N V, Wenger N, Vidaillet H, Phillips R S

机构信息

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2000 Feb 1;132(3):191-200. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-3-200002010-00004.

DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-132-3-200002010-00004
PMID:10651599
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that specialty care is more costly but may produce improved outcomes for patients with acute cardiac illnesses.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients with congestive heart failure who are cared for by cardiologists experienced differences in costs, care patterns, and survival compared with patients of generalists.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

5 U.S. teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994.

PATIENTS

1298 patients hospitalized with an exacerbation of congestive heart failure.

MEASUREMENTS

Hospital costs; average daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) score; and survival censored at 30, 180, and 365 days and 31 December 1994.

RESULTS

Compared with patients of generalists, patients of cardiologists were younger (mean age, 63.3 and 71.4 years; P < 0.001) and had lower Acute Physiology Scores at the time of admission (35.1 and 36.7; P < 0.001) but were more likely to have a history of ventricular arrhythmias (21.0% and 10.2%; P < 0.001). At 6 months, 201 (27%) patients of cardiologists and 149 (27%) patients of generalists had died. After adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics and severity of illness, patients of cardiologists incurred costs that were 42.9% (95% CI, 27.8% to 59.8%) higher and average daily TISS scores that were 2.83 points (CI, 1.96 to 3.68 points) higher than those of patients of generalists. Patients of cardiologists were more likely to undergo right-heart catheterization (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9 [CI, 1.7 to 4.9]) or cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9 [CI, 2.4 to 6.2]) and had higher odds for transfer to an intensive care unit and electrocardiographic monitoring. Adjusted survival did not differ significantly between groups at 30 days; however, there was a trend toward improved survival among patients of cardiologists at 1 year (adjusted relative hazard, 0.82 [CI, 0.65 to 1.04]) and at maximum follow-up (adjusted relative hazard, 0.80 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, cardiologist care was associated with greater costs and resource use and no difference in survival at 30 days of follow-up. Whether the trend toward better survival at longer follow-up represents differences in care or unadjusted illness severity is uncertain.

摘要

背景

以往研究表明,专科护理费用更高,但对于急性心脏疾病患者而言,可能会带来更好的治疗效果。

目的

确定与由普通医生治疗的充血性心力衰竭患者相比,由心脏病专家治疗的患者在费用、护理模式及生存率方面是否存在差异。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

地点

1989年至1994年间美国的5家教学医院。

患者

1298例因充血性心力衰竭加重而住院的患者。

测量指标

医院费用;平均每日治疗干预评分系统(TISS)评分;以及在30天、180天、365天和1994年12月31日进行生存情况审查。

结果

与普通医生治疗的患者相比,心脏病专家治疗的患者更年轻(平均年龄分别为63.3岁和71.4岁;P<0.001),入院时急性生理学评分更低(分别为35.1和36.7;P<0.001),但更有可能有室性心律失常病史(分别为21.0%和10.2%;P<0.001)。6个月时,201例(27%)由心脏病专家治疗的患者和149例(27%)由普通医生治疗的患者死亡。在对社会人口学特征和疾病严重程度进行调整后,心脏病专家治疗的患者所产生的费用比普通医生治疗的患者高42.9%(95%CI,27.8%至59.8%),平均每日TISS评分比普通医生治疗的患者高2.83分(CI,1.96至3.68分)。心脏病专家治疗的患者更有可能接受右心导管检查(调整后的优势比为2.9[CI,1.7至4.9])或心脏导管检查(调整后的优势比为3.9[CI,2.4至6.2]),转入重症监护病房和进行心电图监测的几率也更高。两组在30天时调整后的生存率无显著差异;然而,在1年时(调整后的相对风险为0.82[CI,0.65至1.04])及最长随访期时(调整后的相对风险为0.80[CI,0.66至0.96]),心脏病专家治疗的患者有生存率提高的趋势。

结论

在这项对因充血性心力衰竭住院患者的观察性研究中,心脏病专家的护理与更高的费用和资源使用相关,且在随访30天时生存率无差异。在更长随访期生存率提高的趋势是代表护理差异还是未调整的疾病严重程度尚不确定。

相似文献

1
Resource use and survival of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure: differences in care by specialty of the attending physician. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.充血性心力衰竭住院患者的资源利用与生存情况:主治医生专业导致的护理差异。SUPPORT研究组。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究。
Ann Intern Med. 2000 Feb 1;132(3):191-200. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-3-200002010-00004.
2
A comparison of generalist and pulmonologist care for patients hospitalized with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: resource intensity, hospital costs, and survival. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.全科医生与肺科医生对重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病住院患者的治疗比较:资源强度、医院成本和生存率。支持研究人员。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究。
Am J Med. 1998 Nov;105(5):366-72. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00290-3.
3
Patient characteristics associated with care by a cardiologist among adults hospitalized with severe congestive heart failure. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.因严重充血性心力衰竭住院的成年患者中与心脏病专家诊疗相关的患者特征。SUPPORT研究人员。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Dec;36(7):2119-25. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)01005-6.
4
Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure.专科护理还是全科护理?一项关于心力衰竭患者选择性收治政策影响的研究。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Aug;12(4):339-45. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339.
5
Seriously ill hospitalized adults: do we spend less on older patients? Support Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.重症住院成人患者:我们在老年患者身上的花费更少吗?支持研究人员。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 Sep;44(9):1043-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb02935.x.
6
Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure: specialty-related disparities in practice patterns and outcomes.因充血性心力衰竭入院患者的治疗:实践模式和治疗结果中的专业相关差异。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Sep;30(3):733-8. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00214-3.
7
A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators.一项改善重症住院患者护理的对照试验。了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究(SUPPORT)。SUPPORT主要研究者。
JAMA. 1995;274(20):1591-8.
8
Race, resource use, and survival in seriously ill hospitalized adults. The SUPPORT Investigators.
J Gen Intern Med. 1996 Jul;11(7):387-96. doi: 10.1007/BF02600183.
9
Generalists and oncologists show similar care practices and outcomes for hospitalized late-stage cancer patients. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks for Treatment.对于住院的晚期癌症患者,全科医生和肿瘤学家的护理方式及治疗效果相似。支持性治疗研究组。了解预后及对治疗结果和风险的偏好的研究。
Med Care. 2000 Nov;38(11):1103-18. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200011000-00005.
10
[Use of diagnostic and therapeutic resources in patients hospitalized for heart failure: influence of admission ward type (INCARGAL Study)].因心力衰竭住院患者诊断和治疗资源的使用:入院病房类型的影响(INCARGAL研究)
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2003 Jan;56(1):49-56. doi: 10.1016/s0300-8932(03)76821-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Prior hospitalizations as a predictor of prognosis in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.既往住院情况作为射血分数轻度降低的心力衰竭患者预后的预测因素
Clin Res Cardiol. 2025 May;114(5):651-664. doi: 10.1007/s00392-025-02612-9. Epub 2025 Feb 18.
2
Implementation of the Care Bundle for the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with/without Heart Failure.慢性阻塞性肺疾病伴/不伴心力衰竭管理护理包的实施
J Clin Med. 2024 Mar 12;13(6):1621. doi: 10.3390/jcm13061621.
3
Effect of implementing a heart failure admission care bundle on hospital readmission and mortality rates: interrupted time series study.
实施心力衰竭入院护理包对医院再入院率和死亡率的影响:中断时间序列研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Dec 14;33(1):55-65. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015511.
4
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Multidisciplinary Intervention by a Geriatrician and a Cardiologist to Usual Care after a Heart Failure Hospitalization in Older Patients: The SENECOR Study.老年患者心力衰竭住院后,比较老年科医生和心脏病专家多学科干预与常规护理的随机对照试验:SENECOR研究。
J Clin Med. 2022 Mar 30;11(7):1932. doi: 10.3390/jcm11071932.
5
Disparities in the characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure admitted to internal medicine and cardiology departments: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study.内科和心脏科收治的急性失代偿性心力衰竭住院患者的特征和结局差异:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。
ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Feb;8(1):390-398. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13084. Epub 2020 Nov 24.
6
Short-term outcomes of heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction after acute decompensation according to the final destination after emergency department care.根据急诊治疗后最终去向,心力衰竭急性失代偿患者射血分数降低和保留患者的短期结局。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2018 Aug;107(8):698-710. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1237-z. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
7
Systematic review of economic burden of heart failure.心力衰竭经济负担的系统评价。
Heart Fail Rev. 2018 Jan;23(1):131-145. doi: 10.1007/s10741-017-9661-0.
8
Effect of cardiologist care on 6-month outcomes in patients discharged with heart failure: results from an observational study based on administrative data.心内科医生的护理对心力衰竭出院患者 6 个月结局的影响:基于行政数据的观察性研究结果。
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 3;7(11):e018243. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018243.
9
The impact of a heart failure educational program for physicians varies based upon physician specialty.针对医生的心力衰竭教育项目的影响因医生专业而异。
J Clin Med Res. 2014 Jun;6(3):173-83. doi: 10.14740/jocmr1790w. Epub 2014 Mar 31.
10
Type of attending physician influenced feeding tube insertions for hospitalized elderly people with severe dementia.主治医生的类型影响了住院的重度痴呆老年人的鼻饲管插入情况。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Apr;33(4):675-82. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1248.