Maymon Shiri Lea, Moravsky Gil, Marcus Gil, Shuvy Mony, Pereg David, Epstein Danny, Litovchik Ilya, Fuchs Shmuel, Minha Sa'ar
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.
Department of Cardiology, Shamir Medical Center, Be'er Yaakov, Zerifin, 70300, Israel.
ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Feb;8(1):390-398. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13084. Epub 2020 Nov 24.
Efforts are constantly made to decrease the rates of readmission after acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). ADHF admissions to internal medicine departments (IMD) were previously associated with higher risk for readmission compared with those admitted to cardiology departments (CD). It is unknown if the earlier still applies after recent advancement in care over the last decade. This contemporary cohort compares characteristics and outcomes of ADHF patients admitted to IMD with those admitted to CD.
The data for this single-centre, retrospective study utilized a cohort of 8332 ADHF patients admitted between 2007 and 2017. We compared patients' baseline characteristics and clinical and laboratory indices of patients admitted to CD and IMD with the outcome defined as 30 day readmission rate. In comparison with those admitted to CD, patients admitted to IMD (89.5% of patients) were older (79 [70-86] vs. 69 [60-78] years; P < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of co-morbidities and a higher ejection fraction. Readmission rates at 30 days were significantly lower in patients admitted to CD (15.9% vs. 19.6%; P = 0.01). Conflicting results of three statistical models failed to associate between the admitting department and 30 day readmission (odds ratio for 30 day readmission in CD: forced and backward stepwise logistic regression 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.97, P = 0.02; stabilized inverse probability weights model odds ratio 1.0, confidence interval 0.75-1.37, P = 0.96).
This contemporary analysis of ADHF patient cohort demonstrates significant differences in the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to IMD and CD. Thus, focusing strategies for readmission prevention in patients admitted to IMD may be beneficial.
人们一直在努力降低急性失代偿性心力衰竭(ADHF)后的再入院率。与入住心内科(CD)的患者相比,此前入住内科(IMD)的ADHF患者再入院风险更高。在过去十年护理水平取得最新进展之后,这种情况是否仍然适用尚不清楚。这项当代队列研究比较了入住IMD的ADHF患者与入住CD的患者的特征和结局。
这项单中心回顾性研究的数据来自2007年至2017年间收治的8332例ADHF患者队列。我们比较了入住CD和IMD的患者的基线特征、临床和实验室指标,结局定义为30天再入院率。与入住CD的患者相比,入住IMD的患者(占患者总数的89.5%)年龄更大(79[70 - 86]岁 vs. 69[60 - 78]岁;P < 0.001),合并症发生率更高,射血分数更高。入住CD的患者30天再入院率显著更低(15.9% vs. 19.6%;P = 0.01)。三种统计模型的结果相互矛盾,未能显示收治科室与30天再入院之间存在关联(CD科室30天再入院的比值比:强制和向后逐步逻辑回归为0.8,95%置信区间为0.65 - 0.97,P = 0.02;稳定逆概率加权模型比值比为1.0,置信区间为0.75 - 1.37,P = 0.96)。
这项对ADHF患者队列的当代分析表明,入住IMD和CD的患者在特征和结局方面存在显著差异。因此,针对入住IMD的患者制定预防再入院的策略可能有益。