Costs and Readmissions Associated with Type A Aortic Dissections at High- and Low-Volume Centers

Alice L Zhou, L. Yesantharao, E. Etchill, I. Barbur, Benjamin L. Shou, Hamza Aziz, C. W. Choi, Jennifer S. Lawton, Ahmet Kilic
{"title":"Costs and Readmissions Associated with Type A Aortic Dissections at High- and Low-Volume Centers","authors":"Alice L Zhou, L. Yesantharao, E. Etchill, I. Barbur, Benjamin L. Shou, Hamza Aziz, C. W. Choi, Jennifer S. Lawton, Ahmet Kilic","doi":"10.59958/hsf.6821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Costs and readmissions associated with type A aortic dissection repairs are not well understood. We investigated statewide readmissions, costs, and outcomes associated with the surgical management of type A aortic dissection repairs at low- and high-volume centers. Methods: We identified all adult type A aortic dissection patients who underwent operative repair in the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission's database (2012–2020). Hospitals were stratified into high- (top quartile of total repairs) or low-volume centers. Results: Of the 249 patients included, 193 (77.5%) were treated at a high-volume center. Patients treated at high- and low-volume centers had no differences in age, sex, race, primary payer, or severity (all p > 0.5). High- compared to low-volume centers had a greater proportion of patients transferred in (71.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.001). High-volume centers also had longer lengths of stay (12 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001), similar inpatient mortality (13.0% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.6), and similar proportion of patients readmitted (54.9% vs. 51.8%, p = 0.7). High-volume centers had greater index admission costs ($114,859 vs. $72,090, p < 0.001) and similar readmission costs ($48,367 vs. $42,204, p = 0.5). At high-volume centers, transferred patients compared to direct admissions had greater severity of illness (p = 0.05), similar mortality (p = 0.53), and greater lengths of stay (p = 0.05). Conclusions: High-volume centers had a greater number of patients transferred from other institutions compared to low-volume centers. High-volume centers were associated with increased index admission resource utilization, with transfer patients having higher illness severity and greater resource utilization, yet similar mortality, compared to direct admission patients.","PeriodicalId":257138,"journal":{"name":"The heart surgery forum","volume":"82 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The heart surgery forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.6821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Costs and readmissions associated with type A aortic dissection repairs are not well understood. We investigated statewide readmissions, costs, and outcomes associated with the surgical management of type A aortic dissection repairs at low- and high-volume centers. Methods: We identified all adult type A aortic dissection patients who underwent operative repair in the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission's database (2012–2020). Hospitals were stratified into high- (top quartile of total repairs) or low-volume centers. Results: Of the 249 patients included, 193 (77.5%) were treated at a high-volume center. Patients treated at high- and low-volume centers had no differences in age, sex, race, primary payer, or severity (all p > 0.5). High- compared to low-volume centers had a greater proportion of patients transferred in (71.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.001). High-volume centers also had longer lengths of stay (12 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001), similar inpatient mortality (13.0% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.6), and similar proportion of patients readmitted (54.9% vs. 51.8%, p = 0.7). High-volume centers had greater index admission costs ($114,859 vs. $72,090, p < 0.001) and similar readmission costs ($48,367 vs. $42,204, p = 0.5). At high-volume centers, transferred patients compared to direct admissions had greater severity of illness (p = 0.05), similar mortality (p = 0.53), and greater lengths of stay (p = 0.05). Conclusions: High-volume centers had a greater number of patients transferred from other institutions compared to low-volume centers. High-volume centers were associated with increased index admission resource utilization, with transfer patients having higher illness severity and greater resource utilization, yet similar mortality, compared to direct admission patients.
高容量和低容量中心 A 型主动脉夹层的相关费用和再住院率
背景:与 A 型主动脉夹层修补术相关的成本和再入院率还不是很清楚。我们在全州范围内调查了低流量和高流量中心与 A 型主动脉夹层修复手术管理相关的再入院率、成本和结果。方法:我们在马里兰州卫生服务成本审查委员会的数据库(2012-2020 年)中确定了所有接受手术修复的成人 A 型主动脉夹层患者。将医院分为高量(总修复量的前四分之一)或低量中心。结果:在纳入的 249 名患者中,193 人(77.5%)在高容量中心接受治疗。在高流量中心和低流量中心接受治疗的患者在年龄、性别、种族、主要付款人或严重程度方面没有差异(所有 p > 0.5)。与低流量中心相比,高流量中心的转入患者比例更高(71.5% 对 17.9%,P < 0.001)。高流量中心的住院时间也更长(12 天 vs. 8 天,p < 0.001),住院患者死亡率相似(13.0% vs. 16.1%,p = 0.6),再入院患者比例相似(54.9% vs. 51.8%,p = 0.7)。高流量中心的指标入院费用更高(114,859 美元对 72,090 美元,p < 0.001),再入院费用相似(48,367 美元对 42,204 美元,p = 0.5)。在高流量中心,与直接入院患者相比,转院患者的病情严重程度更高(p = 0.05),死亡率相似(p = 0.53),住院时间更长(p = 0.05)。结论:与低流量中心相比,高流量中心从其他机构转来的病人数量更多。与直接入院的患者相比,转院患者的病情严重程度更高,资源利用率更高,但死亡率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信