Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Surgery. 2021 Jul;170(1):304-310. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.03.053. Epub 2021 Apr 30.
While coding-based frailty tools may readily identify at-risk patients, they have not been adopted into screening guidelines for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or thoracic endovascular aortic repair at the national level. We aimed to characterize the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and resource use after endovascular aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a nationally representative cohort.
The 2005 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify all adults undergoing elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Patients were considered "frail" if they suffered from any frailty-defining diagnoses in the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups. Multivariable regression models were used to identify independent associations with outcomes of interest including in-hospital mortality, nonhome discharge, and hospitalization costs.
Of an estimated 301,869 patients, 273,415 (90.6%) underwent endovascular aneurysm repair and the remainder thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Frailty prevalence was lower in the endovascular aneurysm repair cohort (2.3%) compared with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (4.7%). After adjustment, frailty was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (endovascular aneurysm repair odds ratio 4.0; thoracic endovascular aortic repair odds ratio 2.5), nonhome discharge rates (endovascular aneurysm repair odds ratio 7.2; thoracic endovascular aortic repair odds ratio 4.2), and predicted costs (endovascular aneurysm repair ß coefficient +$10.6K; thoracic endovascular aortic repair ß coefficient +$38.2K) for both cohorts.
Given that frailty portends inferior outcomes for both endovascular aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair, its inclusion in existing risk models may better inform shared decision-making.
虽然基于编码的虚弱工具可以很容易地识别高危患者,但它们尚未被纳入全国范围内的血管内腹主动脉瘤修复或胸主动脉血管内修复的筛查指南。我们旨在使用全国代表性队列来描述虚弱对血管内动脉瘤修复和胸主动脉血管内修复后临床结果和资源利用的影响。
通过查询 2005 年至 2018 年全国住院患者样本,确定所有接受择期血管内腹主动脉瘤修复或胸主动脉血管内修复的成年人。如果患者在约翰霍普金斯调整临床组中患有任何虚弱定义的诊断,则被认为是“虚弱”。多变量回归模型用于确定与研究结果相关的独立关联,包括院内死亡率、非家庭出院和住院费用。
在估计的 301869 名患者中,273415 名(90.6%)接受了血管内动脉瘤修复,其余的则接受了胸主动脉血管内修复。血管内动脉瘤修复组的虚弱患病率(2.3%)低于胸主动脉血管内修复组(4.7%)。调整后,虚弱与较高的院内死亡率相关(血管内动脉瘤修复比值比 4.0;胸主动脉血管内修复比值比 2.5),非家庭出院率(血管内动脉瘤修复比值比 7.2;胸主动脉血管内修复比值比 4.2),以及两个队列的预测成本(血管内动脉瘤修复 β 系数+$10.6K;胸主动脉血管内修复 β 系数+$38.2K)。
鉴于虚弱对血管内动脉瘤修复和胸主动脉血管内修复的结果都不利,因此将其纳入现有的风险模型可能会更好地为共同决策提供信息。