Suppr超能文献

门诊心脏导管插入术的可行性及成本节约潜力

Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization.

作者信息

Lee J C, Bengtson J R, Lipscomb J, Bashore T M, Mark D B, Califf R M, Pryor D B, Hlatky M A

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Feb;15(2):378-84. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(10)80066-x.

Abstract

To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization according to published guidelines. Resource consumption was recorded, and cost savings were then calculated by analyzing the specific supply and personnel costs that could change as a result of inpatient versus outpatient status. Of the total of 986 patients who underwent diagnostic catheterization, 240 (24%) were outpatients, 279 (28%) were inpatients but had no exclusion criteria for outpatient catheterization and 467 (47%) were inpatients who had one or more exclusions for outpatient catheterization. The most common reasons for exclusion from outpatient catheterization were congestive heart failure (22%), unstable angina (15%), noncoronary heart disease (14%), recent myocardial infarction (11%) and severe noncardiac disease (9%). Inpatients with no exclusions for the outpatient procedure tended to be sicker than outpatients because they were older (p = 0.002), had a lower ejection fraction (p = 0.009) and had more triple vessel coronary artery disease (p less than 0.0001). The cost of the catheterization procedure itself was not different between inpatients and outpatients. Laboratory testing was more frequent among inpatients, however, and "room and board" costs were significantly higher. Although the difference in hospital charges for inpatients and outpatients was $580, a rigorous analysis indicated that the potential cost savings was only 38% of this amount, or $218 per eligible patient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

为了确定将门诊心脏导管插入术替代住院心脏导管插入术的可行性和成本节约潜力,我们在一家大型转诊医院对986例连续进行的手术进行了研究。根据已发表的指南,前瞻性地将患者分类为是否适合门诊心脏导管插入术。记录资源消耗情况,然后通过分析因住院与门诊状态可能发生变化的特定供应和人员成本来计算成本节约。在总共986例接受诊断性导管插入术的患者中,240例(24%)为门诊患者,279例(28%)为住院患者但无门诊导管插入术的排除标准,467例(47%)为住院患者且有一项或多项门诊导管插入术的排除标准。排除门诊导管插入术的最常见原因是充血性心力衰竭(22%)、不稳定型心绞痛(15%)、非冠心病(14%)、近期心肌梗死(11%)和严重非心脏疾病(9%)。无门诊手术排除标准的住院患者往往比门诊患者病情更重,因为他们年龄更大(p = 0.002)、射血分数更低(p = 0.009)且三支冠状动脉疾病更多(p小于0.0001)。住院患者和门诊患者的导管插入术本身成本并无差异。然而,住院患者的实验室检查更频繁,“食宿”成本显著更高。尽管住院患者和门诊患者的医院收费差异为580美元,但一项严格分析表明,潜在成本节约仅为该金额的38%,即每位符合条件的患者218美元。(摘要截短至250字)

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