Miriam Nuño1, Chirag G Patil, Patrick Lyden, Doniel Drazin. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Center for Neurosurgical Outcomes Research, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, 8631 W. Third Street, Suite 800E, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prompt management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is critical. Literature is inconclusive regarding outcomes for patients directly admitted to specialized centers versus transferred from lower-volume hospitals. Providers are often unclear about the safety of transferring critical patients. This study evaluated the "transfer effect" in a large sample of aneurysmal SAH patients undergoing treatment. METHODS: Using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2002-2007 data, we analyzed outcomes of SAH patients treated with coil or clip procedures. Analyses studied the effect of direct-admit versus transfer admission on mortality, discharge disposition, complications, length of stay (LOS), and total charges. RESULTS: Of 47,114 patients, 31,711 (67.3 %) were direct-admits and 15,403 (32.7 %) were transfers. More transfer patients were coiled than direct-admits (45.3 vs. 33.7 %, p < 0.0001) and fewer underwent ventriculostomy (26.6 vs. 31.5 %, p = 0.003). Older age (OR 1.2, p < 0.0001), higher disease severity (OR 1.4, p < 0.0001), lower volume (OR 1.5, p < 0.0001), and ventriculostomy (OR 2.1, p < 0.0001) increased mortality and predicted non-routine discharge, complications, LOS, and charges. Transfer patients had similar mortality (OR 0.9, p = 0.13) and complications (OR 0.9, p = 0.22) as direct-admits, but incurred higher non-routine discharge (OR 1.3, p = 0.002). Analysis of grade V patients demonstrated similar outcomes between direct-admits and transfers; however, charges for treating transfer patients were notably higher ($401,386 vs. $242,774, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patients treated in the lowest volume hospitals were 1.6 times more likely to die than those treated at the highest quintile hospitals. Among the critically ill grade V patients, transfer to higher-volume specialized centers did not increase the likelihood of a poor prognosis.
INTRODUCTION: Prompt management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is critical. Literature is inconclusive regarding outcomes for patients directly admitted to specialized centers versus transferred from lower-volume hospitals. Providers are often unclear about the safety of transferring critical patients. This study evaluated the "transfer effect" in a large sample of aneurysmalSAHpatients undergoing treatment. METHODS: Using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2002-2007 data, we analyzed outcomes of SAHpatients treated with coil or clip procedures. Analyses studied the effect of direct-admit versus transfer admission on mortality, discharge disposition, complications, length of stay (LOS), and total charges. RESULTS: Of 47,114 patients, 31,711 (67.3 %) were direct-admits and 15,403 (32.7 %) were transfers. More transfer patients were coiled than direct-admits (45.3 vs. 33.7 %, p < 0.0001) and fewer underwent ventriculostomy (26.6 vs. 31.5 %, p = 0.003). Older age (OR 1.2, p < 0.0001), higher disease severity (OR 1.4, p < 0.0001), lower volume (OR 1.5, p < 0.0001), and ventriculostomy (OR 2.1, p < 0.0001) increased mortality and predicted non-routine discharge, complications, LOS, and charges. Transfer patients had similar mortality (OR 0.9, p = 0.13) and complications (OR 0.9, p = 0.22) as direct-admits, but incurred higher non-routine discharge (OR 1.3, p = 0.002). Analysis of grade V patients demonstrated similar outcomes between direct-admits and transfers; however, charges for treating transfer patients were notably higher ($401,386 vs. $242,774, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION:Patients treated in the lowest volume hospitals were 1.6 times more likely to die than those treated at the highest quintile hospitals. Among the critically ill grade V patients, transfer to higher-volume specialized centers did not increase the likelihood of a poor prognosis.
Authors: Rakesh Khatri; Nauman Tariq; Gabriela Vazquez; M Fareed K Suri; Mustapha A Ezzeddine; Adnan I Qureshi Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: E Sander Connolly; Alejandro A Rabinstein; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Colin P Derdeyn; Jacques Dion; Randall T Higashida; Brian L Hoh; Catherine J Kirkness; Andrew M Naidech; Christopher S Ogilvy; Aman B Patel; B Gregory Thompson; Paul Vespa Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jack J M Ligtenberg; L Gert Arnold; Ymkje Stienstra; Tjip S van der Werf; John H J M Meertens; Jaap E Tulleken; Jan G Zijlstra Journal: Crit Care Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Austin M Tang; Joshua Bakhsheshian; Li Ding; Casey A Jarvis; Edith Yuan; Ben Strickland; Steven L Giannotta; Arun Amar; Frank J Attenello; William J Mack Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Menno Robbert; Menno R Germans; Jantien Hoogmoed; H A Stéphanie van Straaten; Bert A Coert; W Peter Vandertop; Dagmar Verbaan Journal: J Neurol Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock; Robert F Rudy; William B Gormley; Kai U Frerichs; M Ali Aziz-Sultan; Rose Du Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Charles Hobson; John Dortch; Tezcan Ozrazgat Baslanti; Daniel R Layon; Alina Roche; Alison Rioux; Jeffrey S Harman; Brenda Fahy; Azra Bihorac Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Corey R Fehnel; William B Gormley; Hormuzdiyar Dasenbrock; Yoojin Lee; Faith Robertson; Alexandra G Ellis; Vincent Mor; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Airton Leonardo de Oliveira Manoel; Alberto Goffi; Tom R Marotta; Tom A Schweizer; Simon Abrahamson; R Loch Macdonald Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 9.097