Jeffrey H Silber1,2,3,4,5, Joseph G Reiter1, Paul R Rosenbaum5,6, Qingyuan Zhao6, Dylan S Small5,6, Bijan A Niknam1, Alexander S Hill1, Lauren L Hochman1, Rachel R Kelz5,7, Lee A Fleisher3,5,8. 1. Center for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 2. The Departments of Pediatrics. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. 4. Department of Health Care Management, The Wharton School. 5. The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. 6. Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Surgery, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. 8. Center for Perioperative Outcomes Research and Transformation, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are numerous definitions of multimorbidity (MM). None systematically examines specific comorbidity combinations accounting for multiple testing when exploring large datasets. OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a list of all single, double, and triple comorbidity combinations, with each individual qualifying comorbidity set (QCS) more than doubling the odds of mortality versus its reference population. Patients with at least 1 QCS were defined as having MM. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort-based study with a matching validation study. SUBJECTS: All fee-for-service Medicare patients between age 65 and 85 without dementia or metastatic solid tumors undergoing general surgery in 2009-2010, and an additional 2011-2013 dataset. MEASURES: 30-day all-location mortality. RESULTS: There were 576 QCSs (2 singles, 63 doubles, and 511 triples), each set more than doubling the odds of dying. In 2011, 36% of eligible patients had MM. As a group, multimorbid patients (mortality rate=7.0%) had a mortality Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=1.90 (1.77-2.04) versus a reference that included both multimorbid and nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=3.3%), and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=3.72 (3.51-3.94) versus only nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=1.6%). When matching 3151 pairs of multimorbid patients from low-volume hospitals to similar patients in high-volume hospitals, the mortality rates were 6.7% versus 5.2%, respectively (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A list of QCSs identified a third of older patients undergoing general surgery that had greatly elevated mortality. These sets can be used to identify vulnerable patients and the specific combinations of comorbidities that make them susceptible to poor outcomes.
BACKGROUND: There are numerous definitions of multimorbidity (MM). None systematically examines specific comorbidity combinations accounting for multiple testing when exploring large datasets. OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a list of all single, double, and triple comorbidity combinations, with each individual qualifying comorbidity set (QCS) more than doubling the odds of mortality versus its reference population. Patients with at least 1 QCS were defined as having MM. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort-based study with a matching validation study. SUBJECTS: All fee-for-service Medicare patients between age 65 and 85 without dementia or metastatic solid tumors undergoing general surgery in 2009-2010, and an additional 2011-2013 dataset. MEASURES: 30-day all-location mortality. RESULTS: There were 576 QCSs (2 singles, 63 doubles, and 511 triples), each set more than doubling the odds of dying. In 2011, 36% of eligible patients had MM. As a group, multimorbid patients (mortality rate=7.0%) had a mortality Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=1.90 (1.77-2.04) versus a reference that included both multimorbid and nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=3.3%), and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=3.72 (3.51-3.94) versus only nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=1.6%). When matching 3151 pairs of multimorbid patients from low-volume hospitals to similar patients in high-volume hospitals, the mortality rates were 6.7% versus 5.2%, respectively (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A list of QCSs identified a third of older patients undergoing general surgery that had greatly elevated mortality. These sets can be used to identify vulnerable patients and the specific combinations of comorbidities that make them susceptible to poor outcomes.
Authors: Miranda T Schram; Dinnus Frijters; Eloy H van de Lisdonk; Janneke Ploemacher; Anton J M de Craen; Margot W M de Waal; Frank J van Rooij; Jan Heeringa; Albert Hofman; Dorly J H Deeg; Francois G Schellevis Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Barbara Starfield; Klaus W Lemke; Robert Herbert; Wendy D Pavlovich; Gerard Anderson Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Claire B Rosen; Chris Wirtalla; Luke J Keele; Sanford E Roberts; Elinore J Kaufman; Daniel N Holena; Scott D Halpern; Rachel R Kelz Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Jerry Suls; Marcel E Salive; Siran M Koroukian; Farrokh Alemi; Jeffrey H Silber; Gabi Kastenmüller; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Claire B Rosen; Sanford E Roberts; Chris J Wirtalla; Omar I Ramadan; Luke J Keele; Elinore J Kaufman; Scott D Halpern; Rachel R Kelz Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 6.532
Authors: Jerry Suls; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jay Berry; Arlene S Bierman; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Tilda Farhat; Martin Fortin; Siran M Koroukian; Ana Quinones; Jeffrey H Silber; Brian W Ward; Melissa Wei; Deborah Young-Hyman; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Phui Sze Angie Au Yong; Eileen Yi Lin Sim; Collin Yih Xian Ho; Yingke He; Charlene Xian Wen Kwa; Li Ming Teo; Hairil Rizal Abdullah Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-05-14