Suppr超能文献

在临终治疗强度较高的医院,生存率是否更好?

Is survival better at hospitals with higher "end-of-life" treatment intensity?

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2010 Feb;48(2):125-32. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c161e4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Concern regarding wide variations in spending and intensive care unit use for patients at the end of life hinges on the assumption that such treatment offers little or no survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between hospital "end-of-life" (EOL) treatment intensity and postadmission survival.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis of Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council discharge data April 2001 to March 2005 linked to vital statistics data through September 2005 using hospital-level correlation, admission-level marginal structural logistic regression, and pooled logistic regression to approximate a Cox survival model.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1,021,909 patients > or =65 years old, incurring 2,216,815 admissions in 169 Pennsylvania acute care hospitals.

MEASURES

EOL treatment intensity (a summed index of standardized intensive care unit and life-sustaining treatment use among patients with a high predicted probability of dying [PPD] at admission) and 30- and 180-day postadmission mortality.

RESULTS

There was a nonlinear negative relationship between hospital EOL treatment intensity and 30-day mortality among all admissions, although patients with higher PPD derived the greatest benefit. Compared with admission at an average intensity hospital, admission to a hospital 1 standard deviation below versus 1 standard deviation above average intensity resulted in an adjusted odds ratio of mortality for admissions at low PPD of 1.06 (1.04-1.08) versus 0.97 (0.96-0.99); average PPD: 1.06 (1.04-1.09) versus 0.97 (0.96-0.99); and high PPD: 1.09 (1.07-1.11) versus 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. By 180 days, the benefits to intensity attenuated (low PPD: 1.03 [1.01-1.04] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.01]; average PPD: 1.03 [1.02-1.05] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.01]; and high PPD: 1.06 [1.04-1.09] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.02]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Admission to higher EOL treatment intensity hospitals is associated with small gains in postadmission survival. The marginal returns to intensity diminish for admission to hospitals above average EOL treatment intensity and wane with time.

摘要

背景

人们对生命末期患者的治疗费用和重症监护病房使用存在广泛差异表示担忧,其主要原因是人们认为此类治疗方法的生存获益微乎其微。

目的

探索医院“生命终末期”(EOL)治疗强度与入院后存活时间之间的关系。

研究设计

利用宾夕法尼亚州医疗保健成本控制委员会 2001 年 4 月至 2005 年 3 月的出院数据,并通过 2005 年 9 月前与生命统计数据相链接,采用医院层面相关性、入院层面边缘结构逻辑回归以及汇总逻辑回归来近似 Cox 生存模型,对宾夕法尼亚州 169 家急性护理医院的 1021909 例年龄≥65 岁患者的 2216815 例入院情况进行回顾性队列分析。

测量指标

EOL 治疗强度(对入院时预测病死率高的患者标准化重症监护病房和生命维持治疗使用的总和指数)以及 30 天和 180 天的入院后死亡率。

结果

所有入院患者的医院 EOL 治疗强度与 30 天死亡率之间存在非线性负相关关系,但病死率较高的患者获益最大。与在平均治疗强度医院入院相比,在病死率低、低 1 个标准差的医院入院与病死率低、高 1 个标准差的医院入院相比,调整后的死亡率比值比(OR)分别为 1.06(1.04-1.08)与 0.97(0.96-0.99);平均病死率:1.06(1.04-1.09)与 0.97(0.96-0.99);病死率高:1.09(1.07-1.11)与 0.97(0.95-0.99)。180 天后,强度的获益减弱(病死率低:1.03(1.01-1.04)与 1.00(0.98-1.01);平均病死率:1.03(1.02-1.05)与 1.00(0.98-1.01);病死率高:1.06(1.04-1.09)与 1.00(0.98-1.02))。

结论

入住 EOL 治疗强度较高的医院与入院后生存时间略有增加相关。对于入住高于平均 EOL 治疗强度的医院的患者,强度的边际收益逐渐减少,并且随着时间的推移而逐渐减少。

相似文献

1
Is survival better at hospitals with higher "end-of-life" treatment intensity?
Med Care. 2010 Feb;48(2):125-32. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c161e4.
2
Hospital end-of-life treatment intensity among cancer and non-cancer cohorts.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Mar;49(3):521-9.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.06.017. Epub 2014 Aug 15.
3
Development and validation of hospital "end-of-life" treatment intensity measures.
Med Care. 2009 Oct;47(10):1098-105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181993191.
4
The Paradox of End-of-Life Hospital Treatment Intensity among Black Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
J Palliat Med. 2018 Jan;21(1):69-77. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2016.0557. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
5
Organizational determinants of hospital end-of-life treatment intensity.
Med Care. 2009 May;47(5):524-30. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819261bd.
7
Factors Associated With Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Lung Cancer Patients and Associated Costs of Care.
Clin Lung Cancer. 2021 May;22(3):e320-e328. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.05.017. Epub 2020 May 23.
8
End-of-Life Care and Health Care Spending for Medicare Beneficiaries With Dementia in Accountable Care Organizations.
JAMA Health Forum. 2025 May 2;6(5):e250731. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0731.
10
Intensity of end-of-life care for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Findings from a large national database.
Cancer. 2016 Apr 15;122(8):1209-15. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29913. Epub 2016 Feb 23.

引用本文的文献

2
Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Very Advanced Solid Tumors.
JAMA Oncol. 2024 Jul 1;10(7):887-895. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.1129.
3
Racial & ethnic disparities in geographic access to critical care in the United States: A geographic information systems analysis.
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 1;18(11):e0287720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287720. eCollection 2023.
5
Place of Death From Cancer in US States With vs Without Palliative Care Laws.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):e2317247. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17247.
7
Is Health Contagious?-Based on Empirical Evidence From China Family Panel Studies' Data.
Front Public Health. 2021 Jul 2;9:691746. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.691746. eCollection 2021.
8
Developing a measure of overall intensity of injury care: A latent class analysis.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 Jan 1;92(1):193-200. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003321.
9
Preference for Aggressive End-of-Life Care among Advanced Cancer Patients in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 10;17(18):6592. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186592.

本文引用的文献

1
Development and validation of hospital "end-of-life" treatment intensity measures.
Med Care. 2009 Oct;47(10):1098-105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181993191.
2
Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality.
JAMA. 2007 Jan 3;297(1):71-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.1.71.
3
The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960-2000.
N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 31;355(9):920-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa054744.
4
Hospital volume and the outcomes of mechanical ventilation.
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):41-50. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa053993.
5
Evaluating the efficiency of california providers in caring for patients with chronic illnesses.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 Jul-Dec;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5-526-43. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.526.
6
Resurrecting treatment histories of dead patients: a study design that should be laid to rest.
JAMA. 2004 Dec 8;292(22):2765-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.22.2765.
7
Value and role of intensive care unit outcome prediction models in end-of-life decision making.
Crit Care Clin. 2004 Jul;20(3):345-62, vii-viii. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2004.03.002.
9
The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care.
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):288-98. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-4-200302180-00007.
10
The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care.
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):273-87. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-4-200302180-00006.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验