Vora Amit N, Peterson Eric D, Hellkamp Anne S, Sutton Nadia R, Panacek Edward, Thomas Laine, de Lemos James A, Wang Tracy Y
From the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (A.N.V., E.D.P., A.S.H., L.T.); Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor (N.R.S.); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento (E.P.); and Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (J.A.d.L.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Mar;9(2):109-16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002108. Epub 2016 Jan 26.
Many patients in the United States require transfer from one hospital to another for acute myocardial infarction (MI) care. How well these transferred-in patients are transitioned back to their local community is unknown.
We used linked Medicare claims data to examine postdischarge outcomes of 39 136 patients with acute MI aged ≥65 years discharged alive from 451 US hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines. Multivariable Cox modeling was used to compare the likelihood of outpatient clinic follow-up and risks of all-cause mortality and all-cause or cardiovascular readmission at 30 days post MI between transferred-in and direct-arrival patients. From 2007 to 2010, 14 060 of 39 136 patients (36%) required interhospital transfer for acute MI care, traveling a median of 43 miles (interquartile range, 27-68 miles; 77.6 km [interquartile range, 48.2-122.6 km]). Compared with those arriving directly, transferred-in patients with MI were slightly younger (median age, 73 versus 74; P<0.01) but less likely to have previous MI, heart failure, and previous revascularization than direct-arrival patients. Relative to direct-arrival patients, those transferred-in had a lower likelihood of outpatient follow-up within 30 days post discharge (risk-adjusted incidence, 69.9% versus 78.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.92) and higher adjusted 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular readmission risks (14.5% versus 14.0%; HRall-cause, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.15 and 9.5% versus 9.1%; HRcardiovascular, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22). In contrast, risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was similar between transferred-in and direct arrivals (1.6% versus 1.6%; HR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.27).
Transferred-in patients with acute MI are less likely to have outpatient clinic follow-up within 30 days and more likely to be readmitted within the first 30 days post discharge compared with direct-arrival patients. These results indicate room for improvement in the safe and seamless transition of care for transferred patients with MI traveling back to their home environments.
在美国,许多急性心肌梗死(MI)患者需要从一家医院转至另一家医院接受治疗。这些转入患者如何顺利转回当地社区尚不清楚。
我们利用医保关联索赔数据,对451家美国医院在急性冠状动脉治疗与干预结果网络注册-遵循指南项目中存活出院的39136例年龄≥65岁的急性MI患者的出院后结局进行了研究。采用多变量Cox模型比较转入患者和直接入院患者在MI后30天内门诊随访的可能性、全因死亡率以及全因或心血管疾病再入院风险。2007年至2010年期间,39136例患者中有14060例(36%)因急性MI治疗需要进行院间转运,转运距离中位数为43英里(四分位间距为27 - 68英里;77.6公里[四分位间距为48.2 - 122.6公里])。与直接入院患者相比,转入的MI患者年龄稍小(年龄中位数为73岁对74岁;P<0.01),但既往有MI、心力衰竭和既往血运重建的可能性低于直接入院患者。相对于直接入院患者,转入患者出院后30天内门诊随访的可能性较低(风险调整发病率为69.9%对78.2%;风险比[HR]为0.90;95%置信区间为0.87 - 0.92),30天全因和心血管疾病再入院的调整风险较高(分别为14.5%对14.0%;全因HR为1.08;95%置信区间为1.01 - 1.15;以及9.5%对9.1%;心血管疾病HR为1.13;95%置信区间为1.04 - 1.22)。相比之下,转入患者和直接入院患者的风险调整30天死亡率相似(分别为1.6%对1.6%;HR为1.05;95%置信区间为0.86 - 1.27)。
与直接入院患者相比,转入的急性MI患者在30天内进行门诊随访的可能性较小,出院后前30天内再次入院的可能性较大。这些结果表明,在将转入的MI患者安全、无缝地转回其家庭环境的护理过渡方面仍有改进空间。