Department of Medicine Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Division of Cardiology Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Oct;8(19):e012059. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012059. Epub 2019 Sep 20.
Background When patients require readmission after a recent myocardial infarction (MI), returning to the discharging (index) hospital may be associated with better outcomes as a result of greater continuity in care. However, little evidence exists to answer this frequent patient question. Methods and Results Among Medicare patients aged ≥65 years discharged home alive post-MI from 491 US hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry, we compared reason for readmission, duration of rehospitalization, and 30-day mortality between patients readmitted to the index versus nonindex hospital within 30 days of index MI discharge. Among 53 471 MI patients, 7715 (14%) were readmitted within 30 days, and most readmitted patients (73%) returned to the discharging hospital. Reason for readmission was not significantly associated with location of readmission. In multivariable modeling, the strongest factors associated with readmission to a nonindex hospital were distance from the discharging hospital, transfer-in during the index MI hospitalization, and frequency of nonindex hospital admissions in the year preceding to the index MI. Duration of rehospitalization did not differ significantly between patients readmitted to the index versus nonindex hospital (median, 4 versus 3 days; =0.17). Mortality risk was also not significantly different between patients readmitted to the index versus nonindex hospital overall (7.4 versus 7.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10) and when stratified by reason for readmission ( for interaction=0.61). Conclusions Post-MI readmissions did not differ in reason for readmission, duration of rehospitalization, or associated mortality when compared between patients who returned to the discharging hospital and those who sought care elsewhere.
当患者最近发生心肌梗死(MI)后需要再次入院时,由于治疗连续性的提高,返回出院医院可能与更好的结局相关。然而,目前几乎没有证据可以回答这一常见的患者问题。
在 ACTION(急性冠状动脉治疗干预结果网络)注册中心的 491 家美国医院中,对出院后存活的年龄≥65 岁的 Medicare 患者进行了研究,比较了 30 天内索引 MI 出院后在索引与非索引医院再次入院的原因、再住院时间和 30 天死亡率。在 53471 例 MI 患者中,7715 例(14%)在 30 天内再次入院,大多数再次入院的患者(73%)返回了出院医院。再次入院的原因与入院地点没有显著相关性。在多变量模型中,与非索引医院再次入院相关的最强因素是出院医院的距离、索引 MI 住院期间的转院以及索引 MI 前一年非索引医院的入院频率。索引与非索引医院的再住院时间无显著差异(中位数,4 天与 3 天;=0.17)。索引与非索引医院的总体死亡率也无显著差异(7.4%与 7.7%;调整后的比值比,0.89;95%CI,0.73-1.10),且根据再入院原因进行分层时也无显著差异(交互检验=0.61)。
与返回出院医院的患者相比,返回索引医院和在其他医院寻求治疗的患者在再入院原因、再住院时间或相关死亡率方面没有差异。