The American journal of the medical sciences · 2024
Cardiology department versus intensive care unit admission after successful uncomplicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cohen Ilanit, Beigel Roy, Guetta Victor, Segev Amit, Fefer Paul, Matetzky Shlomo, Mazin Israel, Berger Michael, Perlman Saritte, Barbash Israel Moshe, Ziv-Baran Tomer
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are admitted directly to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) despite low complication rates. Reducing unnecessary CICU hospitalization reduces healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between patients admitted directly to the cardiology department (CD) and those admitted to CICU based on prespecified protocols.
METHODS: Historical cohort study of all patients who underwent TAVR and were admitted directly to the CD according to a prespecified protocol (uncomplicated procedure, hemodynamically stable, without new conduction abnormalities) in 2017-2018, and the same number of patients meeting the same criteria who were admitted to the CICU in 2015-2016 before direct CD admission was initiated. Pacemaker implantation during the procedure was not considered a new conduction abnormality. In-hospital outcomes and 30-day post-discharge outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, 260 patients (130 CICU + 130 CD) were included in the study. There was no in-hospital mortality in either group, and the post-procedure length of stay was shorter for patients admitted to CD (median and IQR: 2, 2-4 vs. 4, 3-5 days, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-day emergency department visits between groups (CICU:13.9% vs. CD:16.2%, p = 0.602), rehospitalization rate (9.3%) was the same in both groups, and one patient from the CICU group died. Similar results were observed in multivariable analysis and after matching.
CONCLUSION: Direct admission to the CD after TAVR, according to the proposed criteria, may be considered as a safe and less expensive alternative for stable patients after an uncomplicated TAVR procedure.
METHODS: Historical cohort study of all patients who underwent TAVR and were admitted directly to the CD according to a prespecified protocol (uncomplicated procedure, hemodynamically stable, without new conduction abnormalities) in 2017-2018, and the same number of patients meeting the same criteria who were admitted to the CICU in 2015-2016 before direct CD admission was initiated. Pacemaker implantation during the procedure was not considered a new conduction abnormality. In-hospital outcomes and 30-day post-discharge outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, 260 patients (130 CICU + 130 CD) were included in the study. There was no in-hospital mortality in either group, and the post-procedure length of stay was shorter for patients admitted to CD (median and IQR: 2, 2-4 vs. 4, 3-5 days, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-day emergency department visits between groups (CICU:13.9% vs. CD:16.2%, p = 0.602), rehospitalization rate (9.3%) was the same in both groups, and one patient from the CICU group died. Similar results were observed in multivariable analysis and after matching.
CONCLUSION: Direct admission to the CD after TAVR, according to the proposed criteria, may be considered as a safe and less expensive alternative for stable patients after an uncomplicated TAVR procedure.