Literature DB >> 24768368

Interfacility transfer and mortality for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Matthew W Mell1, Nancy E Wang2, Doug E Morrison2, Tina Hernandez-Boussard2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patients receiving interfacility transfer to a higher level of medical care for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) are an important minority that are not well characterized and are typically omitted from outcomes and quality indicator studies. Our objective was to compare patients transferred for treatment of rAAAs with those treated without transfer, with particular emphasis on mortality and resource utilization.
METHODS: We linked longitudinal data from 2005 to 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases and Emergency Department Databases from California, Florida, and New York. Patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification codes. Our main outcome variables were mortality, length of stay, and cost. Data included discharge information on the transfer-out and transfer-in hospital. We used univariate and multivariate analysis to identify variables independently associated with transfer and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: Of 4439 rAAA patients identified with intent to treat, 847 (19.1%) were transferred before receiving operative repair. Of those transferred, 141 (17%) died without undergoing AAA repair. By multivariate analysis, increasing age in years (odds ratio [OR] 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-0.99; P < .001), private insurance vs Medicare (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80; P < .001), and increasing comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95; P < .001) were negatively associated with transfer. Weekend presentation (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.47; P = .03) was positively associated with transfer. Transfer was associated with a lower operative mortality (adjusted OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97; P < .02) but an increased overall mortality when including transferred patients who died without surgery (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05-1.60; P = .01). Among the transferred patients, there was no significant difference in travel distance between those who survived and those who died (median, 28.7 vs 25.8 miles; P = .07). Length of stay (median, 10 vs 9 days; P = .008), and hospital costs ($161,000 vs $146,000; P = .02) were higher for those transferred.
CONCLUSIONS: The survival advantage for patients transferred who received treatment was eclipsed by increased mortality of the transfer process. Including 17% of transferred patients who died without receiving definitive repair, mortality was increased for patients transferred for rAAA repair compared with those not transferred after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and hospital factors. Transferred patients used significantly more hospital resources. Improving systems and guidelines for interfacility transfer may further improve the outcomes for these patients and decrease associated hospital resource utilization.
Copyright © 2014 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24768368     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.02.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  9 in total

1.  Effect of Transfer Status on Outcomes of Emergency General Surgery Patients.

Authors:  Jennifer L Philip; Dou-Yan Yang; Xing Wang; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Bret M Hanlon; Jessica Schumacher; Megan C Saucke; Jeffrey Havlena; Heena P Santry; Angela M Ingraham
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Comparisons of the surgical outcomes and medical costs between transferred and directly admitted patients diagnosed with intestinal obstruction in an American tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Xian Hua Gao; Hanumant Chouhan; Emre Gorgun; Luca Stocchi; Gokhan Ozuner
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms remain high compared with elective repair.

Authors:  Priya B Patel; Christina L Marcaccio; Livia E V M de Guerre; Virendra I Patel; Grace Wang; Kristina Giles; Marc L Schermerhorn
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 4.268

4.  In-hospital outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: A single center experience.

Authors:  Niki Tadayon; Mohammad Mozafar; Sina Zarrintan
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Thorac Res       Date:  2022-03-06

5.  Insurance status influences emergent designation in surgical transfers.

Authors:  Kristy Kummerow Broman; Sharon Phillips; Rachel M Hayes; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Michael D Holzman; Kenneth Sharp; Sunil Kripalani; Benjamin K Poulose
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 2.192

6.  Outcomes of regional transfers of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in a UK vascular network.

Authors:  V K Proctor; M J Lee; A H Nassef
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  Ambulance smartphone tool for field triage of ruptured aortic aneurysms (FILTR): study protocol for a prospective observational validation of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Thomas L Lewis; Rachael T Fothergill; Alan Karthikesalingam
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Authors:  Stephen A Smith; Jennifer M Yamamoto; Derek J Roberts; Karen L Tang; Paul E Ronksley; Elijah Dixon; W Donald Buie; Matthew T James
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Helicopter emergency medical service for time critical interfacility transfers of patients with cardiovascular emergencies.

Authors:  Lorenz Meuli; Alexander Zimmermann; Anna-Leonie Menges; Mario Tissi; Stefan Becker; Roland Albrecht; Urs Pietsch
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 2.953

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.