Impact of frailty on hiatal hernia repair: a nationwide analysis of in-hospital clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes.

Y Lee, B Huo, T McKechnie, J Agzarian, D Hong
{"title":"Impact of frailty on hiatal hernia repair: a nationwide analysis of in-hospital clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes.","authors":"Y Lee,&nbsp;B Huo,&nbsp;T McKechnie,&nbsp;J Agzarian,&nbsp;D Hong","doi":"10.1093/dote/doad038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies recommend a watch-and-wait approach to paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair due to an increased risk for mortality. While contemporary studies suggest that elective surgery is safe and effective, many patients presenting with PEH are elderly. Therefore, we assessed the impact of frailty on in-hospital outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients receiving PEH repair. This retrospective population-based cohort study assessed patients from the National Inpatient Sample database who received PEH repair between October 2015 to December 2019. Demographic and perioperative data were gathered, and frailty was measured using the 11-item modified frailty index. The outcomes measured were in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge disposition, and healthcare utilization. Overall, 10,716 patients receiving PEH repair were identified, including 1442 frail patients. Frail patients were less often female and were more often in the lowest income quartile compared to robust patients. Frail patients were at greater odds for in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.83 (95% CI 1.65-4.83); P < 0.001], postoperative ICU admissions [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.55-2.78); P < 0.001], any complications [OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.55-2.78); P < 0.001], hospital length of stay [mean difference (MD) 1.75 days (95% CI 1.30-2.210; P < 0.001], and total admission costs [MD $5631.65 (95% CI $3300.06-$7.963.24); P < 0.001] relative to their robust patients. While PEH repair in elderly patients is safe and effective, frail patients have an increased rate of in-hospital mortality, postoperative ICU admissions, complications, and total admission costs. Clinicians should consider patient frailty when identifying the most appropriate surgical candidates for PEH repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":11255,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doad038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous studies recommend a watch-and-wait approach to paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair due to an increased risk for mortality. While contemporary studies suggest that elective surgery is safe and effective, many patients presenting with PEH are elderly. Therefore, we assessed the impact of frailty on in-hospital outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients receiving PEH repair. This retrospective population-based cohort study assessed patients from the National Inpatient Sample database who received PEH repair between October 2015 to December 2019. Demographic and perioperative data were gathered, and frailty was measured using the 11-item modified frailty index. The outcomes measured were in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge disposition, and healthcare utilization. Overall, 10,716 patients receiving PEH repair were identified, including 1442 frail patients. Frail patients were less often female and were more often in the lowest income quartile compared to robust patients. Frail patients were at greater odds for in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.83 (95% CI 1.65-4.83); P < 0.001], postoperative ICU admissions [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.55-2.78); P < 0.001], any complications [OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.55-2.78); P < 0.001], hospital length of stay [mean difference (MD) 1.75 days (95% CI 1.30-2.210; P < 0.001], and total admission costs [MD $5631.65 (95% CI $3300.06-$7.963.24); P < 0.001] relative to their robust patients. While PEH repair in elderly patients is safe and effective, frail patients have an increased rate of in-hospital mortality, postoperative ICU admissions, complications, and total admission costs. Clinicians should consider patient frailty when identifying the most appropriate surgical candidates for PEH repair.

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
虚弱对裂孔疝修补术的影响:一项全国性的住院临床和医疗利用结果分析。
先前的研究建议采用观望的方法进行食管旁疝(PEH)修复,因为死亡风险增加。虽然当代研究表明选择性手术是安全有效的,但许多PEH患者都是老年人。因此,我们评估了在接受PEH修复的患者中,虚弱对住院结果和医疗利用率的影响。这项基于人群的回顾性队列研究评估了2015年10月至2019年12月期间接受PEH修复的国家住院患者样本数据库中的患者。收集人口统计学和围手术期数据,并使用11项改良虚弱指数测量虚弱程度。测量的结果包括住院死亡率、并发症、出院处置和医疗利用率。总的来说,10716名接受PEH修复的患者被确认,其中包括1442名虚弱的患者。与健壮的患者相比,虚弱的患者不太常见于女性,更常见于收入最低的四分之一人群。虚弱患者住院死亡率的几率更大[比值比(OR)2.83(95%CI 1.65-4.83);P
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of perioperative oral swallowing function with post-esophagectomy outcomes and nutritional statuses in patients with esophageal cancer. Safety and efficacy of EsoFLIP dilation in patients with esophageal dysmotility: a systematic review. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings that do no not explain dysphagia are associated with underutilization of high-resolution manometry. Risk of metastasis among patients diagnosed with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic follow-up. Evaluation of indocyanine green tracheobronchial fluorescence (ICG-TBF) via nebulization during minimally invasive esophagectomy.
×
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:481959085
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