Clinical and utilization outcomes with short stay units vs hospital admission for lower risk decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Peter S. Pang, Sean P. Collins, Zachary L. Cox, Steven K. Roumpf, Christian C. Strachan, William Swigart, Mirian Ramirez, Benton R. Hunter
{"title":"Clinical and utilization outcomes with short stay units vs hospital admission for lower risk decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Peter S. Pang, Sean P. Collins, Zachary L. Cox, Steven K. Roumpf, Christian C. Strachan, William Swigart, Mirian Ramirez, Benton R. Hunter","doi":"10.1007/s10741-024-10436-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With over 1 million primary heart failure (HF) hospitalizations annually, nearly 80% of patients who present to the emergency department with decompensated HF (DHF) are hospitalized. Short stay units (SSU) present an alternative to hospitalization, yet the effectiveness of the SSU strategy of care is not well known. This study is to determine the effectiveness of a SSU strategy compared with hospitalization in lower-risk patients with DHF. Our primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality and re-hospitalization. Key secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and re-hospitalization, costs, and 30-day days-alive-and-out-of-hospital (DAOOH). This is a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception through February 2024. Either randomized trials or comparative observational studies were included if they compared outcomes between low-risk ED DHF patients admitted to an SSU (defined as an observation unit with expected stay ≤ 48 h) vs. admitted to the hospital. Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and then identified full texts for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two authors in parallel. The primary outcome was a composite of death or readmission within 30 days, reported as relative risk (RR), where a RR &lt; 1 favored the SSU strategy. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and re-hospitalization, costs, and 1-month days-alive-and-out-of-hospital (DAOOH). Of the 467 articles identified by our search strategy, only 3 full text articles were included. In meta-analysis for the primary outcome of 30-day death or readmission, the RR was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.56 to 1.63; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) for patients randomized to SSU vs hospitalization (2 studies, 241 patients). There were only 2 total deaths at 30 days in the 2 studies (total <i>N</i> = 258) which reported 30-day mortality, both in hospitalized patients. Only one study reported 90-day outcomes, showing no significant differences. Costs were lower in the SSU arm from one study, and 30-day DAOOH also favored SSU based on a single randomized trial. Based on very limited evidence, SSU provides similar efficacy for 30-day and 90-day mortality and readmission compared to hospitalization. An SSU strategy appears safe and may be cost effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":12950,"journal":{"name":"Heart Failure Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart Failure Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-024-10436-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With over 1 million primary heart failure (HF) hospitalizations annually, nearly 80% of patients who present to the emergency department with decompensated HF (DHF) are hospitalized. Short stay units (SSU) present an alternative to hospitalization, yet the effectiveness of the SSU strategy of care is not well known. This study is to determine the effectiveness of a SSU strategy compared with hospitalization in lower-risk patients with DHF. Our primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality and re-hospitalization. Key secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and re-hospitalization, costs, and 30-day days-alive-and-out-of-hospital (DAOOH). This is a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched from inception through February 2024. Either randomized trials or comparative observational studies were included if they compared outcomes between low-risk ED DHF patients admitted to an SSU (defined as an observation unit with expected stay ≤ 48 h) vs. admitted to the hospital. Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and then identified full texts for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two authors in parallel. The primary outcome was a composite of death or readmission within 30 days, reported as relative risk (RR), where a RR < 1 favored the SSU strategy. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and re-hospitalization, costs, and 1-month days-alive-and-out-of-hospital (DAOOH). Of the 467 articles identified by our search strategy, only 3 full text articles were included. In meta-analysis for the primary outcome of 30-day death or readmission, the RR was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.56 to 1.63; I2 = 0%) for patients randomized to SSU vs hospitalization (2 studies, 241 patients). There were only 2 total deaths at 30 days in the 2 studies (total N = 258) which reported 30-day mortality, both in hospitalized patients. Only one study reported 90-day outcomes, showing no significant differences. Costs were lower in the SSU arm from one study, and 30-day DAOOH also favored SSU based on a single randomized trial. Based on very limited evidence, SSU provides similar efficacy for 30-day and 90-day mortality and readmission compared to hospitalization. An SSU strategy appears safe and may be cost effective.

Abstract Image

短期住院与住院治疗低风险失代偿性心力衰竭的临床和使用效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
每年有超过 100 万名原发性心力衰竭(HF)患者住院治疗,在急诊科就诊的失代偿性心力衰竭(DHF)患者中有近 80% 需要住院治疗。短期住院部(SSU)是住院治疗的一种替代方案,但短期住院部护理策略的有效性尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定短期住院治疗策略与住院治疗相比,对低风险 DHF 患者的疗效。我们的主要结果是 30 天死亡率和再次住院率。主要次要结果包括 90 天死亡率和再住院率、费用以及 30 天存活和出院天数(DAOOH)。这是一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,遵循 PRISMA 指南。从开始到 2024 年 2 月,对 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、CINAHL、SCOPUS 和 Web of Science 进行了检索。随机试验或比较观察性研究均被纳入,只要这些研究比较了入住 SSU(定义为预计住院时间不超过 48 小时的观察病房)的低风险急诊 DHF 患者与入住医院的低风险急诊 DHF 患者之间的治疗效果。两位作者独立筛选了所有标题和摘要,然后确定了纳入的全文。两位作者同时进行数据提取和偏倚风险评估。主要结果是30天内死亡或再入院的综合结果,以相对风险(RR)报告,RR < 1有利于SSU策略。次要结果包括 90 天死亡率和再入院率、费用以及 1 个月的存活和出院天数(DAOOH)。在我们的搜索策略所确定的 467 篇文章中,仅有 3 篇全文收录。在对 30 天死亡或再入院这一主要结果的荟萃分析中,随机接受 SSU 与住院治疗的患者的 RR 为 0.95(95% CI = 0.56 至 1.63;I2 = 0%)(2 项研究,241 名患者)。在报告了 30 天死亡率的 2 项研究(总人数 = 258)中,仅有 2 例患者在 30 天内死亡,且均为住院患者。只有一项研究报告了 90 天的治疗结果,结果显示两者无明显差异。一项研究显示 SSU 治疗组的成本较低,根据一项随机试验,30 天 DAOOH 也更倾向于 SSU。基于非常有限的证据,与住院治疗相比,SSU 对 30 天和 90 天死亡率和再入院治疗具有相似的疗效。SSU 策略似乎是安全的,而且可能具有成本效益。
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
Heart Failure Reviews
Heart Failure Reviews 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
2.20%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart Failure Reviews is an international journal which develops links between basic scientists and clinical investigators, creating a unique, interdisciplinary dialogue focused on heart failure, its pathogenesis and treatment. The journal accordingly publishes papers in both basic and clinical research fields. Topics covered include clinical and surgical approaches to therapy, basic pharmacology, biochemistry, molecular biology, pathology, and electrophysiology. The reviews are comprehensive, expanding the reader''s knowledge base and awareness of current research and new findings in this rapidly growing field of cardiovascular medicine. All reviews are thoroughly peer-reviewed before publication.
×
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