Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2021
The economic impact of infection requiring hospitalization on venous leg ulcers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Melikian Raffi, O'Donnell Thomas F, Iafrati Mark
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of infection (INF) on medical resource utilization (MRU) and cost of care in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLU).
METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of 78 patients followed for a minimum of 12 months with C6 VLUs treated by vascular surgeons, at our wound center. To eliminate minor episodes of INF or incorrectly diagnosed episodes, only patients who had an inpatient admission specifically for INF comprised the INF group, whereas all other admissions were excluded for this group. MRU was defined as the number of clinic visits, Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) visits, and inpatient admissions. The actual cost for treatment was determined using financial data provided by both the hospital and physician organization billing units. The total cost over the 1-year follow-up period comprised individual cost centers: inpatient and outpatient facility fees, physician fees, and visiting nurse services. Mean MRU and cost data were compared using the two-sample t-test between INF and NON-INF.
RESULTS: Of the 78 patients with C6 VLU, 9 (11.5%) had at least one inpatient admission for INF related to their VLU in the 1-year treatment period, with an additional five recurrent admissions for a total of 14 admissions, whereas 69 NON-INF had three NON-INF-related admissions. There was no difference between INF and NON-INF for usual risk factors, but INF had a greater proportion of congestive heart failure (44%; 13%, P < .02). Regarding MRU, both the number of outpatient wound center visits (INF 16.89 ± 6.41; NON-INF 9.46 ± 7.7, P = .008) and VNA blocks (INF 3.89 ± 2.93; NON-INF 1.94 ± 2.24, P < .02) were greater for INF. Total costs for INF ($27,408 ± $10,859) were threefold higher than those for NON-INF ($11,088 ± $9343, P < .0001) and subsequent VNA costs were doubled for INF ($9956 ± $4657) vs NON-INF ($4657 ± $5486, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: INFs in patients with VLU led to an overall increase in MRU and cost of care, with the INF cohort requiring more inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, and VNA services than NON-INF. Given the major impact INF has on cost and MRU, better treatment modalities that prevent INF as well as identifying risk factors for INF in patients with VLU are needed.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of 78 patients followed for a minimum of 12 months with C6 VLUs treated by vascular surgeons, at our wound center. To eliminate minor episodes of INF or incorrectly diagnosed episodes, only patients who had an inpatient admission specifically for INF comprised the INF group, whereas all other admissions were excluded for this group. MRU was defined as the number of clinic visits, Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) visits, and inpatient admissions. The actual cost for treatment was determined using financial data provided by both the hospital and physician organization billing units. The total cost over the 1-year follow-up period comprised individual cost centers: inpatient and outpatient facility fees, physician fees, and visiting nurse services. Mean MRU and cost data were compared using the two-sample t-test between INF and NON-INF.
RESULTS: Of the 78 patients with C6 VLU, 9 (11.5%) had at least one inpatient admission for INF related to their VLU in the 1-year treatment period, with an additional five recurrent admissions for a total of 14 admissions, whereas 69 NON-INF had three NON-INF-related admissions. There was no difference between INF and NON-INF for usual risk factors, but INF had a greater proportion of congestive heart failure (44%; 13%, P < .02). Regarding MRU, both the number of outpatient wound center visits (INF 16.89 ± 6.41; NON-INF 9.46 ± 7.7, P = .008) and VNA blocks (INF 3.89 ± 2.93; NON-INF 1.94 ± 2.24, P < .02) were greater for INF. Total costs for INF ($27,408 ± $10,859) were threefold higher than those for NON-INF ($11,088 ± $9343, P < .0001) and subsequent VNA costs were doubled for INF ($9956 ± $4657) vs NON-INF ($4657 ± $5486, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: INFs in patients with VLU led to an overall increase in MRU and cost of care, with the INF cohort requiring more inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, and VNA services than NON-INF. Given the major impact INF has on cost and MRU, better treatment modalities that prevent INF as well as identifying risk factors for INF in patients with VLU are needed.