Alternative discharge destination following lobectomy: Analysis of a national quality improvement database

IF 1.9 JTCVS open Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.020
Victoria Yin MD, MPH , Sean C. Wightman MD , Takashi Harano MD , Scott M. Atay MD , Anthony W. Kim MD
{"title":"Alternative discharge destination following lobectomy: Analysis of a national quality improvement database","authors":"Victoria Yin MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Sean C. Wightman MD ,&nbsp;Takashi Harano MD ,&nbsp;Scott M. Atay MD ,&nbsp;Anthony W. Kim MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine factors significantly associated with alternative discharge destination (ADCD) following lobectomy, including the modified 5-item Frailty Index (mFI-5).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients in the 2017-2020 NSQIP who underwent elective lobectomy and were admitted from home were included, with ADCD defined as a patient who was discharged to any nonhome location. Four multivariable logistic regression models for ADCD were evaluated for predictive power. Model A was created from backward selection of variables significantly associated with ADCD in bivariate analyses, model B was the mFI-5, model C was mFI-5 and a minimally invasive approach, and model D was mFI-5 and age group.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the 15,868 patients, 687 (4.3%) experienced ADCD. Model A identified older age, hypertension, dyspnea, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and increased length of stay as significantly associated with ADCD. A minimally invasive approach was significantly protective of ADCD. Model A had the best predictive power of the models tested (C-statistic = 0.785). Model B, which assessed mFI-5 alone, had fair predictive power (C-statistic = 0.637). Adding surgical approach (C-statistic = 0.673; model C) or age group (C-statistic = 0.682; model D) as independent variables with mFI-5 improved model fit.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Patients who were frail or age &gt;75 years were more likely to have postlobectomy ADCD. Although the variables identified in model A better predict ADCD, consideration of surgical approach or age with mFI-5 can help surgeons anticipate discharge destination following lobectomy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"21 ","pages":"Pages 349-357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine factors significantly associated with alternative discharge destination (ADCD) following lobectomy, including the modified 5-item Frailty Index (mFI-5).

Methods

Patients in the 2017-2020 NSQIP who underwent elective lobectomy and were admitted from home were included, with ADCD defined as a patient who was discharged to any nonhome location. Four multivariable logistic regression models for ADCD were evaluated for predictive power. Model A was created from backward selection of variables significantly associated with ADCD in bivariate analyses, model B was the mFI-5, model C was mFI-5 and a minimally invasive approach, and model D was mFI-5 and age group.

Results

Among the 15,868 patients, 687 (4.3%) experienced ADCD. Model A identified older age, hypertension, dyspnea, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and increased length of stay as significantly associated with ADCD. A minimally invasive approach was significantly protective of ADCD. Model A had the best predictive power of the models tested (C-statistic = 0.785). Model B, which assessed mFI-5 alone, had fair predictive power (C-statistic = 0.637). Adding surgical approach (C-statistic = 0.673; model C) or age group (C-statistic = 0.682; model D) as independent variables with mFI-5 improved model fit.

Conclusions

Patients who were frail or age >75 years were more likely to have postlobectomy ADCD. Although the variables identified in model A better predict ADCD, consideration of surgical approach or age with mFI-5 can help surgeons anticipate discharge destination following lobectomy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肺叶切除术后的出院选择:国家质量改进数据库分析
目的 确定与肺叶切除术后替代出院目的地(ADCD)明显相关的因素,包括改良的 5 项虚弱指数(mFI-5)。方法 纳入 2017-2020 年 NSQIP 中接受择期肺叶切除术并从家中入院的患者,ADCD 定义为出院到任何非家庭所在地的患者。评估了 ADCD 的四个多变量逻辑回归模型的预测能力。模型 A 是根据双变量分析中与 ADCD 显著相关的变量逆向选择创建的,模型 B 是 mFI-5,模型 C 是 mFI-5 和微创方法,模型 D 是 mFI-5 和年龄组。模型 A 发现年龄较大、高血压、呼吸困难、慢性阻塞性肺病病史和住院时间延长与 ADCD 显著相关。微创方法对 ADCD 有明显保护作用。在所测试的模型中,模型 A 的预测能力最强(C 统计量 = 0.785)。单独评估 mFI-5 的模型 B 预测能力一般(C 统计量 = 0.637)。将手术方式(C-统计量=0.673;模型 C)或年龄组(C-统计量=0.682;模型 D)作为 mFI-5 的自变量可提高模型的拟合度。虽然模型 A 中确定的变量能更好地预测 ADCD,但考虑手术方式或年龄与 mFI-5 可以帮助外科医生预测肺叶切除术后的出院去向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of hospital volume with perioperative and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive thymectomy Impact of pathologically confirmed inner lung tumors on nodal upstaging and feasibility of segmentectomy versus lobectomy Reduced thrombotic risk with recombinant factor VIIa in neonatal cardiac surgery When wedge resection is good enough: Survival outcomes and nodal involvement of ground-glass–dominant stage IA non–small cell lung cancer National race-based disparities in referral to Commission on Cancer centers for lung cancer resection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1