Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024
Impacts of Hospital Volume and Patient-Hospital Distances on Outcomes of Older Adults Receiving Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Devices for Cardiogenic Shock.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Watanabe Atsuyuki, Miyamoto Yoshihisa, Ueyama Hiroki A, Gotanda Hiroshi, Jentzer Jacob C, Kapur Navin K, Jorde Ulrich P, Tsugawa Yusuke, Kuno Toshiki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist devices (pVADs) have the potential to reduce mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the association between the distribution of pVAD-performing centers and outcomes of CS has not been explored.
METHODS: This observational study included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years treated with pVAD for CS from 2016 to 2020. It examined the associations between patient outcomes and 2 exposure variables: hospitals' procedure volumes of pVAD and patient-hospital distances (in quintiles [Qn]). We developed Cox proportional hazards regression for 180-day mortality and heart failure readmission rates, and multivariable logistic regression for in-hospital outcomes, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, concomitant treatments, and hospital characteristics, including CS volume, teaching status, and the ability to perform extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
RESULTS: A total of 6637 patients with CS underwent pVAD at 1041 hospitals, with the annualized hospital volume ranging widely from 0.3 to 55.6 cases/year. Patients treated at higher-volume centers experienced lower 180-day mortality compared with those treated at lower-volume centers (Qn1=reference; Qn2: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; Qn3: aHR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]; Qn4: aHR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; Qn5: aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.74-0.95]; P for trend, 0.026), while we found no evidence that patient-hospital distances were associated with mortality (Qn1=reference; Qn2: aHR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.09]; Qn3: aHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.85-1.04]; Qn4: aHR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92-1.11]; Qn5: aHR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.01]; P for trend, 0.160). We found no evidence that the hospital volume and patient-hospital distances were associated with in-hospital bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, or renal replacement therapy initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital volume was more strongly associated with mortality than patient-hospital distances, suggesting that rational distribution of pVAD-performing centers while ensuring adequate procedure volumes may optimize patient mortality.
METHODS: This observational study included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years treated with pVAD for CS from 2016 to 2020. It examined the associations between patient outcomes and 2 exposure variables: hospitals' procedure volumes of pVAD and patient-hospital distances (in quintiles [Qn]). We developed Cox proportional hazards regression for 180-day mortality and heart failure readmission rates, and multivariable logistic regression for in-hospital outcomes, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, concomitant treatments, and hospital characteristics, including CS volume, teaching status, and the ability to perform extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
RESULTS: A total of 6637 patients with CS underwent pVAD at 1041 hospitals, with the annualized hospital volume ranging widely from 0.3 to 55.6 cases/year. Patients treated at higher-volume centers experienced lower 180-day mortality compared with those treated at lower-volume centers (Qn1=reference; Qn2: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; Qn3: aHR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]; Qn4: aHR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; Qn5: aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.74-0.95]; P for trend, 0.026), while we found no evidence that patient-hospital distances were associated with mortality (Qn1=reference; Qn2: aHR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.09]; Qn3: aHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.85-1.04]; Qn4: aHR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92-1.11]; Qn5: aHR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.01]; P for trend, 0.160). We found no evidence that the hospital volume and patient-hospital distances were associated with in-hospital bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, or renal replacement therapy initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital volume was more strongly associated with mortality than patient-hospital distances, suggesting that rational distribution of pVAD-performing centers while ensuring adequate procedure volumes may optimize patient mortality.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansHeart-Assist DevicesAgedShock, CardiogenicMaleFemaleUnited StatesHospitals, High-VolumeAged, 80 and overTreatment OutcomeHospitals, Low-VolumeMedicareTime FactorsRisk FactorsRisk AssessmentHospital MortalityPatient ReadmissionRetrospective StudiesAge FactorsHealth Services AccessibilityProsthesis ImplantationDatabases, Factual