Postacute Discharge Destination and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

IF 7.8 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Abdulaziz T Bako, Thomas Potter, Alan Pan, Cynthia Chih-Ying Li, Catherine Cooper Hay, Mathew Reeves, Rhonda Abott, Farhaan S Vahidy
{"title":"Postacute Discharge Destination and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.","authors":"Abdulaziz T Bako, Thomas Potter, Alan Pan, Cynthia Chih-Ying Li, Catherine Cooper Hay, Mathew Reeves, Rhonda Abott, Farhaan S Vahidy","doi":"10.1161/STROKEAHA.125.050620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies evaluating health system factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) survivors are lacking. We evaluate differences in MACE incidence across postacute ICH care settings-inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), home, or skilled nursing facilities (SNF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from Florida, New York, Maryland, Washington, and Georgia, we identified adult ICH survivors discharged to home, IRF, or SNF (April 2016-December 2018). Multivariable logistic models, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, treatment intensity, comorbidities, and frailty, estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for the association between discharge disposition (IRF versus home; IRF versus SNF) and MACE (a composite of acute stroke, acute myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, and vascular death), recurrent ICH, acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, vascular death, and all-cause mortality within 1 year. Cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained using <i>International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision</i> codes. We assessed age-discharge disposition interaction, performing stratified analyses for patients <65 and ≥65 years when the interaction was significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 58 591 patients with ICH (mean age [SD], 68.1 [16.0] years; 47.1% female), 17 647 ICH survivors discharged home (46.4%), to IRF (25.5%), or to SNF (28.1%) were included. Within 1 year, 1302 (7.4%) patients experienced MACE, with rates for recurrent ICH, acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, vascular death, and mortality at 2.5%, 3.2%, 0.6%, 1.3%, and 3.5%, respectively. In fully adjusted models, patients discharged to IRF had significantly lower odds of MACE (versus home: aOR, 0.84 [CI, 0.71-0.98]; versus SNF: aOR, 0.79 [CI, 0.67-0.93]), with a significant discharge disposition-age interaction (<i>P</i>=0.047). In stratified analysis, IRF discharge (versus home) was only significantly associated with MACE in patients aged <65 years (aOR, 0.70 [CI, 0.54-0.92]), not in those aged ≥65 years (aOR, 0.94 [CI, 0.77-1.15]). Patients discharged to IRF had significantly lower odds of recurrent ICH (versus SNF: aOR, 0.60 [CI, 0.45-0.80]), vascular death (versus SNF: aOR, 0.70 [CI, 0.49-0.99]), and all-cause mortality (versus SNF: aOR, 0.63 [CI, 0.50-0.79]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IRF care (versus SNF and home) was associated with lower odds of MACE. Further research is needed to determine specific components of IRF care contributing to better outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":21989,"journal":{"name":"Stroke","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.125.050620","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Studies evaluating health system factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) survivors are lacking. We evaluate differences in MACE incidence across postacute ICH care settings-inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), home, or skilled nursing facilities (SNF).

Methods: Using data from Florida, New York, Maryland, Washington, and Georgia, we identified adult ICH survivors discharged to home, IRF, or SNF (April 2016-December 2018). Multivariable logistic models, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, treatment intensity, comorbidities, and frailty, estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for the association between discharge disposition (IRF versus home; IRF versus SNF) and MACE (a composite of acute stroke, acute myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, and vascular death), recurrent ICH, acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, vascular death, and all-cause mortality within 1 year. Cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. We assessed age-discharge disposition interaction, performing stratified analyses for patients <65 and ≥65 years when the interaction was significant.

Results: Among 58 591 patients with ICH (mean age [SD], 68.1 [16.0] years; 47.1% female), 17 647 ICH survivors discharged home (46.4%), to IRF (25.5%), or to SNF (28.1%) were included. Within 1 year, 1302 (7.4%) patients experienced MACE, with rates for recurrent ICH, acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, vascular death, and mortality at 2.5%, 3.2%, 0.6%, 1.3%, and 3.5%, respectively. In fully adjusted models, patients discharged to IRF had significantly lower odds of MACE (versus home: aOR, 0.84 [CI, 0.71-0.98]; versus SNF: aOR, 0.79 [CI, 0.67-0.93]), with a significant discharge disposition-age interaction (P=0.047). In stratified analysis, IRF discharge (versus home) was only significantly associated with MACE in patients aged <65 years (aOR, 0.70 [CI, 0.54-0.92]), not in those aged ≥65 years (aOR, 0.94 [CI, 0.77-1.15]). Patients discharged to IRF had significantly lower odds of recurrent ICH (versus SNF: aOR, 0.60 [CI, 0.45-0.80]), vascular death (versus SNF: aOR, 0.70 [CI, 0.49-0.99]), and all-cause mortality (versus SNF: aOR, 0.63 [CI, 0.50-0.79]).

Conclusions: IRF care (versus SNF and home) was associated with lower odds of MACE. Further research is needed to determine specific components of IRF care contributing to better outcomes.

脑出血患者急性出院后目的地与主要心血管不良事件
背景:目前缺乏评估脑出血(ICH)幸存者中与主要不良心血管事件(MACE)相关的卫生系统因素的研究。我们评估急性脑出血后护理环境(住院康复设施(IRF)、家庭或熟练护理设施(SNF))中MACE发生率的差异。方法:使用来自佛罗里达州、纽约州、马里兰州、华盛顿州和佐治亚州的数据,我们确定了2016年4月至2018年12月期间出院至家中、IRF或SNF的成年ICH幸存者。多变量logistic模型,调整了社会人口学因素、治疗强度、合并症和虚弱,估计了出院处置(IRF vs home;IRF vs SNF)和MACE(急性卒中、急性心肌梗死、全身栓塞和血管性死亡的组合)、复发性脑出血、急性缺血性卒中、急性心肌梗死、血管性死亡和1年内全因死亡率。使用国际疾病分类第十次修订代码确定心血管结局。我们评估了年龄-出院倾向的相互作用,对患者进行了分层分析。结果:在58591例脑出血患者中(平均年龄[SD], 68.1[16.0]岁;47.1%女性),17 647名ICH幸存者出院回家(46.4%),到IRF(25.5%),或到SNF(28.1%)。1年内,1302例(7.4%)患者发生MACE,复发性脑出血、急性缺血性卒中、急性心肌梗死、血管性死亡和死亡率分别为2.5%、3.2%、0.6%、1.3%和3.5%。在完全调整后的模型中,出院到IRF的患者发生MACE的几率显著低于家中:aOR, 0.84 [CI, 0.71-0.98];相对于SNF: aOR, 0.79 [CI, 0.67-0.93]),有显著的出院倾向-年龄相互作用(P=0.047)。在分层分析中,IRF出院(与家庭相比)仅与老年患者的MACE显著相关。结论:IRF护理(与SNF和家庭相比)与较低的MACE发生率相关。需要进一步的研究来确定IRF护理的具体组成部分有助于更好的结果。
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
Stroke
Stroke 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
6.00%
发文量
2021
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Stroke is a monthly publication that collates reports of clinical and basic investigation of any aspect of the cerebral circulation and its diseases. The publication covers a wide range of disciplines including anesthesiology, critical care medicine, epidemiology, internal medicine, neurology, neuro-ophthalmology, neuropathology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, nuclear medicine, nursing, radiology, rehabilitation, speech pathology, vascular physiology, and vascular surgery. The audience of Stroke includes neurologists, basic scientists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, internists, interventionalists, neurosurgeons, nurses, and physiatrists. Stroke is indexed in Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents, Embase, MEDLINE, and Science Citation Index Expanded.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信