经导管主动脉瓣植入术中基于风险排序的等待时间基准:一项模拟研究。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059
Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣植入术中基于风险排序的等待时间基准:一项模拟研究。","authors":"Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as \"low-\", \"medium-\" and \"high-risk\", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11869,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wait-times Benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael N Miranda, Peter C Austin, Stephen E Fremes, Mamas A Mamas, Maneesh K Sud, David M J Naimark, Harindra C Wijeysundera\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as \\\"low-\\\", \\\"medium-\\\" and \\\"high-risk\\\", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去十年中,经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的需求不断增加,导致许多医疗系统的等待时间延长,并产生了不良的健康后果。基于风险的优先排序和等待时间基准可以改善患者的公平就医:我们使用模拟模型对 50,000 名患者从转诊到完成 TAVI 的整个过程进行了跟踪。根据患者发生不良事件的风险,可将其分为 "低风险"、"中风险 "和 "高风险",高风险组的等待时间较短。我们评估了每个风险组的规模和等待时间对等待者死亡率、住院率和紧急 TAVI 的影响。所有方案都有相同的资源限制,使我们能够探索优先患者更快就诊和非优先群体推迟就诊之间的权衡:增加高风险患者的比例,并为高风险人群提供更快的手术机会,可最大程度地降低死亡率、住院率和紧急 TAVI(相对降幅分别高达 29%、23% 和 38%)。然而,这是以非优先低风险组的过长等待时间(长达 25 周)为代价的。我们建议高风险患者的等待时间最多为 3 周,中等风险患者的等待时间最多为 7 周:结论:优先考虑高风险患者,让他们更快地获得医疗服务,能带来更好的医疗效果,但这也会导致在医疗能力有限的情况下,非优先群体的等待时间过长,令人无法接受。决策者在制定和实施候诊优先策略时必须意识到这些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Wait-times Benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: a simulation study.

Background: Demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients.

Methods: We used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50,000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as "low-", "medium-" and "high-risk", and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups.

Results: Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23% and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.

Conclusions: Prioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes is an English language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing cardiovascular outcomes research. It serves as an official journal of the European Society of Cardiology and maintains a close alliance with the European Heart Health Institute. The journal disseminates original research and topical reviews contributed by health scientists globally, with a focus on the quality of care and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes at the hospital, national, and international levels. It provides a platform for presenting the most outstanding cardiovascular outcomes research to influence cardiovascular public health policy on a global scale. Additionally, the journal aims to motivate young investigators and foster the growth of the outcomes research community.
期刊最新文献
Should we routinely measure patient quality of life after acute coronary syndrome? National health expenditure per capita is associated with CRT implantation practice: findings from the ESC CRT Survey II with 11 088 patients. Impact of intravascular ultrasound for coronary bifurcations treated with last generations stents: insights from the BIFURCAT-ULTRA registry. Treatment with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies is associated with discontinuation of oral lipid lowering therapy. Quality indicators for improved cardiovascular care: learnings from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
×
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