心源性休克患者姑息治疗的应用:对2020年全国住院患者样本数据库的回顾性分析

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of palliative medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1089/jpm.2024.0116
Akriti Agrawal, Adishwar Rao, Ishan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar, Saahith Garg, Ashish Shrivastava, Arnav Garyali, Arun Dontaraju, Abhiram Gannamaneni, Rishi Panjala, Srikar Yeruva, Sabiha Armin, Alisha Young, Astrid Grouls
{"title":"心源性休克患者姑息治疗的应用:对2020年全国住院患者样本数据库的回顾性分析","authors":"Akriti Agrawal, Adishwar Rao, Ishan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar, Saahith Garg, Ashish Shrivastava, Arnav Garyali, Arun Dontaraju, Abhiram Gannamaneni, Rishi Panjala, Srikar Yeruva, Sabiha Armin, Alisha Young, Astrid Grouls","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Cardiogenic shock (CS) is one of the leading causes of death in patients with myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and congestive heart failure. The utilization patterns of specialist palliative care (PC) consultation in these patients are currently unknown. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To determine the utilization of PC in patients with CS and the overall comorbidities of that population. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Review of the 2020 National Inpatient Sample identified 6,471,165 hospitalizations of which 38,531 patients were hospitalized with CS via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) code R57.0. Demographics and details of hospitalization were compared for patients who received PC evaluation (<i>N</i> = 8457) and those who did not (<i>N</i> = 30,074) as identified via ICD-10 CM code Z51.5. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients who received PC evaluation were older (≥65 years: 69.01% vs. 55.04%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had shorter hospital stays (<14 days: 78.92% vs. 70.35% patients, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (65.80% vs. 24.23%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥4, 55.22% vs. 48.09%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Furthermore, the patients who received PC had significantly higher odds of death than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio = 6, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Despite high mortality rates, specialist PC is not routinely involved in the care of those who die with CS, although does appear to be utilized among those most likely to die. This suggests preferential utilization of specialist PC for terminal patients; however, further research will be helpful to better understand current consult practices and increase PC utilization for this highly morbid population.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilization of Palliative Care in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database, 2020.\",\"authors\":\"Akriti Agrawal, Adishwar Rao, Ishan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar, Saahith Garg, Ashish Shrivastava, Arnav Garyali, Arun Dontaraju, Abhiram Gannamaneni, Rishi Panjala, Srikar Yeruva, Sabiha Armin, Alisha Young, Astrid Grouls\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jpm.2024.0116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Cardiogenic shock (CS) is one of the leading causes of death in patients with myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and congestive heart failure. The utilization patterns of specialist palliative care (PC) consultation in these patients are currently unknown. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To determine the utilization of PC in patients with CS and the overall comorbidities of that population. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Review of the 2020 National Inpatient Sample identified 6,471,165 hospitalizations of which 38,531 patients were hospitalized with CS via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) code R57.0. Demographics and details of hospitalization were compared for patients who received PC evaluation (<i>N</i> = 8457) and those who did not (<i>N</i> = 30,074) as identified via ICD-10 CM code Z51.5. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients who received PC evaluation were older (≥65 years: 69.01% vs. 55.04%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had shorter hospital stays (<14 days: 78.92% vs. 70.35% patients, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (65.80% vs. 24.23%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥4, 55.22% vs. 48.09%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Furthermore, the patients who received PC had significantly higher odds of death than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio = 6, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Despite high mortality rates, specialist PC is not routinely involved in the care of those who die with CS, although does appear to be utilized among those most likely to die. This suggests preferential utilization of specialist PC for terminal patients; however, further research will be helpful to better understand current consult practices and increase PC utilization for this highly morbid population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0116\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心源性休克(CS)是心肌梗死、心肌炎和充血性心力衰竭患者死亡的主要原因之一。这些患者的专科姑息治疗(PC)咨询的使用模式目前尚不清楚。目的:确定CS患者使用PC的情况以及该人群的总体合并症。方法:回顾2020年全国住院患者样本,通过国际疾病分类第十版临床修改(ICD-10 CM)代码R57.0,确定了6,471,165例住院患者,其中38,531例CS住院患者。通过ICD-10 CM代码Z51.5对接受PC评估的患者(N = 8457)和未接受PC评估的患者(N = 30,074)进行人口统计学和住院详情的比较。结果:接受PC评估的患者年龄较大(≥65岁:69.01%比55.04%,p < 0.001),住院时间较短(p < 0.001),住院死亡率较高(65.80%比24.23%,p < 0.001), Charlson合病指数较高(≥4,55.22%比48.09%,p < 0.001)。此外,接受PC治疗的患者的死亡几率明显高于未接受PC治疗的患者(调整后的优势比= 6,p < 0.0001)。结论:尽管死亡率很高,专业的PC并没有常规地参与到那些死于CS的人的护理中,尽管似乎在那些最有可能死亡的人身上得到了利用。提示晚期患者优先使用专科PC;然而,进一步的研究将有助于更好地了解当前的咨询实践,并提高PC对这一高度病态人群的利用率。
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
Utilization of Palliative Care in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database, 2020.

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is one of the leading causes of death in patients with myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and congestive heart failure. The utilization patterns of specialist palliative care (PC) consultation in these patients are currently unknown. Objectives: To determine the utilization of PC in patients with CS and the overall comorbidities of that population. Methods: Review of the 2020 National Inpatient Sample identified 6,471,165 hospitalizations of which 38,531 patients were hospitalized with CS via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) code R57.0. Demographics and details of hospitalization were compared for patients who received PC evaluation (N = 8457) and those who did not (N = 30,074) as identified via ICD-10 CM code Z51.5. Results: Patients who received PC evaluation were older (≥65 years: 69.01% vs. 55.04%, p < 0.001), had shorter hospital stays (<14 days: 78.92% vs. 70.35% patients, p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (65.80% vs. 24.23%, p < 0.001) with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥4, 55.22% vs. 48.09%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the patients who received PC had significantly higher odds of death than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio = 6, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Despite high mortality rates, specialist PC is not routinely involved in the care of those who die with CS, although does appear to be utilized among those most likely to die. This suggests preferential utilization of specialist PC for terminal patients; however, further research will be helpful to better understand current consult practices and increase PC utilization for this highly morbid population.

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
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
期刊最新文献
"Telehealth Allows for Flexibility and More Equity": Provider Perspectives on Telehealth for Outpatient Palliative Care for Underserved Patients. Grief and Bereavement in Pediatric Palliative Care #502. A Systematic Review of Grief Experiences of Children Who Have Lost a Sibling. Pancreatic Enzyme Supplementation for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer #500. Letter to the Editor: Error in Estimating Prevalence of Iatrogenic Opioid Use Disorder.
×
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