医院心力衰竭医疗治疗评分及相关临床结果和成本。

IF 14.8 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS JAMA cardiology Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2969
Vincenzo B Polsinelli,Jie-Lena Sun,Stephen J Greene,Karen Chiswell,Gary K Grunwald,Larry A Allen,Pamela Peterson,Ambarish Pandey,Gregg C Fonarow,Paul Heidenreich,P Michael Ho,Paul L Hess
{"title":"医院心力衰竭医疗治疗评分及相关临床结果和成本。","authors":"Vincenzo B Polsinelli,Jie-Lena Sun,Stephen J Greene,Karen Chiswell,Gary K Grunwald,Larry A Allen,Pamela Peterson,Ambarish Pandey,Gregg C Fonarow,Paul Heidenreich,P Michael Ho,Paul L Hess","doi":"10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nA composite score for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with increased survival. Whether hospital performance according to a GDMT score is associated with a broader array of clinical outcomes at lower costs is unknown.\r\n\r\nObjectives\r\nTo evaluate hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge, 90-day risk-standardized clinical outcomes and costs, and associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs.\r\n\r\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\r\nThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2015 to September 2019. Included for analysis were patients hospitalized for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry, a national hospital-based quality improvement registry. Study data were analyzed from July 2022 to April 2023.\r\n\r\nExposures\r\nGDMT score at discharge.\r\n\r\nMain Outcomes and Measures\r\nHospital variability in GDMT score, a weighted index from 0 to 1 of GDMT prescribed divided by the number of medications eligible, at discharge was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model using the hospital as a random effect and quantified with the adjusted median odds ratio (AMOR). Parallel analyses centering on 90-day mortality, HF rehospitalization, mortality or HF rehospitalization, home time, and costs were performed. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. Associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs were evaluated using Spearman coefficients.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nAmong 41 161 patients (median [IQR] age, 78 [71-85] years; 25 546 male [62.1%]) across 360 hospitals, there was significant hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26), clinical outcomes (mortality AMOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24; HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.27; mortality or HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; home time AMOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and costs (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26). Higher hospital GDMT score was associated with lower hospital mortality (Spearman ρ, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12; P < .001), lower mortality or HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06; P = .002), more home time (Spearman ρ, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.24; P = .01), and lower cost (Spearman ρ, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0; P = .047) but not with HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0; P = .06).\r\n\r\nConclusions and Relevance\r\nResults of this cohort study reveal that hospital variability in GDMT score, clinical outcomes, and costs was significant. Higher GDMT score at discharge was associated with lower mortality, lower mortality or hospitalization, more home time, and lower cost. Efforts to increase health care value should include GDMT optimization.","PeriodicalId":14657,"journal":{"name":"JAMA cardiology","volume":"120 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hospital Heart Failure Medical Therapy Score and Associated Clinical Outcomes and Costs.\",\"authors\":\"Vincenzo B Polsinelli,Jie-Lena Sun,Stephen J Greene,Karen Chiswell,Gary K Grunwald,Larry A Allen,Pamela Peterson,Ambarish Pandey,Gregg C Fonarow,Paul Heidenreich,P Michael Ho,Paul L Hess\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Importance\\r\\nA composite score for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with increased survival. Whether hospital performance according to a GDMT score is associated with a broader array of clinical outcomes at lower costs is unknown.\\r\\n\\r\\nObjectives\\r\\nTo evaluate hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge, 90-day risk-standardized clinical outcomes and costs, and associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs.\\r\\n\\r\\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\\r\\nThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2015 to September 2019. Included for analysis were patients hospitalized for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry, a national hospital-based quality improvement registry. Study data were analyzed from July 2022 to April 2023.\\r\\n\\r\\nExposures\\r\\nGDMT score at discharge.\\r\\n\\r\\nMain Outcomes and Measures\\r\\nHospital variability in GDMT score, a weighted index from 0 to 1 of GDMT prescribed divided by the number of medications eligible, at discharge was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model using the hospital as a random effect and quantified with the adjusted median odds ratio (AMOR). Parallel analyses centering on 90-day mortality, HF rehospitalization, mortality or HF rehospitalization, home time, and costs were performed. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. Associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs were evaluated using Spearman coefficients.\\r\\n\\r\\nResults\\r\\nAmong 41 161 patients (median [IQR] age, 78 [71-85] years; 25 546 male [62.1%]) across 360 hospitals, there was significant hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26), clinical outcomes (mortality AMOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24; HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.27; mortality or HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; home time AMOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and costs (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26). Higher hospital GDMT score was associated with lower hospital mortality (Spearman ρ, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12; P < .001), lower mortality or HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06; P = .002), more home time (Spearman ρ, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.24; P = .01), and lower cost (Spearman ρ, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0; P = .047) but not with HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0; P = .06).\\r\\n\\r\\nConclusions and Relevance\\r\\nResults of this cohort study reveal that hospital variability in GDMT score, clinical outcomes, and costs was significant. Higher GDMT score at discharge was associated with lower mortality, lower mortality or hospitalization, more home time, and lower cost. Efforts to increase health care value should include GDMT optimization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA cardiology\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2969\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"JAMA cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2969","RegionNum":1,"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

重要性 对心力衰竭(HF)患者进行指导性医疗治疗(GDMT)的综合评分与生存率的提高有关。目标评估出院时 GDMT 评分的医院变异性、90 天风险标准化临床结局和成本,以及医院 GDMT 评分与临床结局和成本之间的关联。设计、设置和参与者这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究时间为 2015 年 1 月至 2019 年 9 月。分析对象包括 "Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry"(一项基于医院的全国性质量改进登记项目)中因射血分数降低的心房颤动(HFrEF)住院的患者。主要结果和测量采用广义线性混合模型,将医院作为随机效应,用调整后的中位数几率比(AMOR)进行量化,评估医院在出院时的GDMT评分(GDMT评分是GDMT处方从0到1的加权指数除以符合条件的药物数量)的变异性。同时还对 90 天死亡率、高血压再住院率、死亡率或高血压再住院率、居家时间和成本进行了分析。成本是从医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的角度进行评估的。结果360家医院的41161名患者(中位数[IQR]年龄,78[71-85]岁;25 546名男性[62.1%])出院时的GDMT评分存在显著的医院差异(AMOR,1.23;95% CI,1.21-1.26)、临床结果(死亡率 AMOR,1.17;95% CI,1.14-1.24;HF 再住院 AMOR,1.22;95% CI,1.18-1.27;死亡率或 HF 再住院 AMOR,1.21;95% CI,1.18-1.26;回家时间 AMOR,1.07;95% CI,1.06-1.10)和费用(AMOR,1.23;95% CI,1.21-1.26)存在显著的医院差异。较高的医院 GDMT 评分与较低的住院死亡率(Spearman ρ,-0.22;95% CI,-0.32 至 -0.12;P < .001)、较低的死亡率或 HF 再住院率(Spearman ρ,-0.17;95% CI,-0.26 至 -0.06;P = .002)、更多的居家时间(Spearman ρ,0.14;95% CI,0.03 至 0.24;P = .结论与相关性这项队列研究的结果显示,医院在 GDMT 评分、临床结果和费用方面存在显著差异。出院时 GDMT 得分越高,死亡率越低,死亡率或住院率越低,居家时间越长,费用越低。提高医疗保健价值的努力应包括优化 GDMT。
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
Hospital Heart Failure Medical Therapy Score and Associated Clinical Outcomes and Costs.
Importance A composite score for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with increased survival. Whether hospital performance according to a GDMT score is associated with a broader array of clinical outcomes at lower costs is unknown. Objectives To evaluate hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge, 90-day risk-standardized clinical outcomes and costs, and associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2015 to September 2019. Included for analysis were patients hospitalized for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry, a national hospital-based quality improvement registry. Study data were analyzed from July 2022 to April 2023. Exposures GDMT score at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures Hospital variability in GDMT score, a weighted index from 0 to 1 of GDMT prescribed divided by the number of medications eligible, at discharge was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model using the hospital as a random effect and quantified with the adjusted median odds ratio (AMOR). Parallel analyses centering on 90-day mortality, HF rehospitalization, mortality or HF rehospitalization, home time, and costs were performed. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. Associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs were evaluated using Spearman coefficients. Results Among 41 161 patients (median [IQR] age, 78 [71-85] years; 25 546 male [62.1%]) across 360 hospitals, there was significant hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26), clinical outcomes (mortality AMOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24; HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.27; mortality or HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; home time AMOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and costs (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26). Higher hospital GDMT score was associated with lower hospital mortality (Spearman ρ, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12; P < .001), lower mortality or HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06; P = .002), more home time (Spearman ρ, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.24; P = .01), and lower cost (Spearman ρ, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0; P = .047) but not with HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0; P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance Results of this cohort study reveal that hospital variability in GDMT score, clinical outcomes, and costs was significant. Higher GDMT score at discharge was associated with lower mortality, lower mortality or hospitalization, more home time, and lower cost. Efforts to increase health care value should include GDMT optimization.
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
JAMA cardiology
JAMA cardiology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
45.80
自引率
1.70%
发文量
264
期刊介绍: JAMA Cardiology, an international peer-reviewed journal, serves as the premier publication for clinical investigators, clinicians, and trainees in cardiovascular medicine worldwide. As a member of the JAMA Network, it aligns with a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications. Published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues annually, JAMA Cardiology attracts over 4.3 million annual article views and downloads. Research articles become freely accessible online 12 months post-publication without any author fees. Moreover, the online version is readily accessible to institutions in developing countries through the World Health Organization's HINARI program. Positioned at the intersection of clinical investigation, actionable clinical science, and clinical practice, JAMA Cardiology prioritizes traditional and evolving cardiovascular medicine, alongside evidence-based health policy. It places particular emphasis on health equity, especially when grounded in original science, as a top editorial priority.
期刊最新文献
Long-Term Aspirin vs Clopidogrel After Coronary Stenting by Bleeding Risk and Procedural Complexity. Alternative LDL Cholesterol-Lowering Strategy vs High-Intensity Statins in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. Palpitations After Transcatheter Atrial Septal Defect Closure. Early Adoption of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction. Semaglutide Eligibility Across All Current Indications for US Adults.
×
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