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

Alice L Zhou, L. Yesantharao, E. Etchill, I. Barbur, Benjamin L. Shou, Hamza Aziz, C. W. Choi, Jennifer S. Lawton, Ahmet Kilic
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Costs and Readmissions Associated with Type A Aortic Dissections at High- and Low-Volume Centers
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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