Klaus Bielefeldt1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA, bielefeldtk@upmc.edu.
Abstract
AIM: Few studies have examined the effects of various interventions in gastroparesis. The goal of the present study was to determine whether inpatient management and outcomes differed among states across the United States. METHODS: Using population statistics and the State Inpatient Database (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), regional differences in admissions for gastroparesis, inpatient mortality, length of stay, nursing home transfers, and rates of endoscopy, gastrostomy placement, and nutritional support were assessed. RESULTS: Admissions for gastroparesis ranged from 24.3 ± 0.8/100,000 in Utah to 117.1 ± 9.7/100,000 in Maryland, with mortality rates similarly varying fourfold from 0.5 ± 0.1/100,000 in Colorado to 2.3 ± 0.1/100,000 in Florida. Intervention rates differed between states (endoscopy: 6.8 ± 0.8 % in Wyoming versus 23.1 ± 0.4 % in Florida; gastrostomy: 0.8 ± 0.1 % in North Carolina versus 3.3 ± 0.8 % in Hawaii; nutritional support: 1.2 ± 0.2 % in West Virginia versus 7.0 ± 0.6 % in New Jersey). Admissions rates were independently predicted by high overall hospitalizations within a state. Higher population density, median incomes and admissions to for-profit hospitals correlated with endoscopy rates. Coexisting heart failure and male gender were associated with higher likelihood of gastrostomy placement, while initiation of nutritional support was predicted by physician supply and insurance status. Age cohort, Medicare coverage, poverty rates and endoscopic testing independently predicted mortality, while length of stay correlated with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variability in admissions, interventions and outcomes for gastroparesis. While biological factors, such as comorbidities and age, contribute to this variability, the data suggest that socioeconomic variables significantly affect approaches to gastroparesis treatment in the United States.
AIM: Few studies have examined the effects of various interventions in gastroparesis. The goal of the present study was to determine whether inpatient management and outcomes differed among states across the United States. METHODS: Using population statistics and the State Inpatient Database (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), regional differences in admissions for gastroparesis, inpatient mortality, length of stay, nursing home transfers, and rates of endoscopy, gastrostomy placement, and nutritional support were assessed. RESULTS: Admissions for gastroparesis ranged from 24.3 ± 0.8/100,000 in Utah to 117.1 ± 9.7/100,000 in Maryland, with mortality rates similarly varying fourfold from 0.5 ± 0.1/100,000 in Colorado to 2.3 ± 0.1/100,000 in Florida. Intervention rates differed between states (endoscopy: 6.8 ± 0.8 % in Wyoming versus 23.1 ± 0.4 % in Florida; gastrostomy: 0.8 ± 0.1 % in North Carolina versus 3.3 ± 0.8 % in Hawaii; nutritional support: 1.2 ± 0.2 % in West Virginia versus 7.0 ± 0.6 % in New Jersey). Admissions rates were independently predicted by high overall hospitalizations within a state. Higher population density, median incomes and admissions to for-profit hospitals correlated with endoscopy rates. Coexisting heart failure and male gender were associated with higher likelihood of gastrostomy placement, while initiation of nutritional support was predicted by physician supply and insurance status. Age cohort, Medicare coverage, poverty rates and endoscopic testing independently predicted mortality, while length of stay correlated with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variability in admissions, interventions and outcomes for gastroparesis. While biological factors, such as comorbidities and age, contribute to this variability, the data suggest that socioeconomic variables significantly affect approaches to gastroparesis treatment in the United States.
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Carrie N Klabunde; Angela C Young; Terry S Field; Robert H Fletcher Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Carlos A Camargo; Sunday Clark; Michael S Kaplan; Philip Lieberman; Robert A Wood Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Victor Chedid; Alexander C Ford; Ken Haruma; Michael Horowitz; Karen L Jones; Phillip A Low; Seon-Young Park; Henry P Parkman; Vincenzo Stanghellini Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jolien Schol; Lucas Wauters; Ram Dickman; Vasile Drug; Agata Mulak; Jordi Serra; Paul Enck; Jan Tack Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 4.623