Clinical and Economic Burden Associated with Disruptive Surgical Bleeding: A Retrospective Database Analysis.
RWE
burden of bleeding
health resource utilization
hemostatic agent
hospital costs
real-world evidence
Journal
ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR
ISSN: 1178-6981
Titre abrégé: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101560564
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
10
03
2023
accepted:
14
06
2023
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
10
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hemostatic agents are used to control surgical bleeding; however, some patients experience disruptive bleeding despite the use of hemostats. In patients receiving hemostats, we compared clinical and economic outcomes between patients with vs without disruptive bleeding during a variety of surgical procedures. This was a retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database. Study patients were age ≥18 with a hospital encounter for one of 9 procedures with evidence of hemostatic agent use between 1-Jan-2019 and 31-Dec-2019: cholecystectomy, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), cystectomy, hepatectomy, hysterectomy, pancreatectomy, peripheral vascular, thoracic, and valve procedures (first procedure = index). Patients were grouped by presence vs absence of disruptive bleeding. Outcomes evaluated during index included intensive care unit (ICU) admission/duration, ventilator use, operating room time, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and total hospital costs; 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission was also evaluated. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the association of disruptive bleeding with outcomes, adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital/provider characteristics. The study included 51,448 patients; 16% had disruptive bleeding (range 1.5% for cholecystectomy to 44.4% for valve). In procedures for which ICU and ventilator use is not routine, disruptive bleeding was associated with significant increases in the risks of admission to ICU and requirement for ventilator (all p≤0.05). Across all procedures, disruptive bleeding was also associated with significant incremental increases in days spent in ICU (all p≤0.05, except CABG), LOS (all p≤0.05, except thoracic), and total hospital costs (all p≤0.05); 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission, in-hospital mortality, and operating room time were higher in the presence of disruptive bleeding and varied in statistical significance across procedures. Disruptive bleeding was associated with substantial clinical and economic burden across a wide variety of surgical procedures. Findings emphasize the need for more effective and timely intervention for surgical bleeding events.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Hemostatic agents are used to control surgical bleeding; however, some patients experience disruptive bleeding despite the use of hemostats. In patients receiving hemostats, we compared clinical and economic outcomes between patients with vs without disruptive bleeding during a variety of surgical procedures.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database. Study patients were age ≥18 with a hospital encounter for one of 9 procedures with evidence of hemostatic agent use between 1-Jan-2019 and 31-Dec-2019: cholecystectomy, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), cystectomy, hepatectomy, hysterectomy, pancreatectomy, peripheral vascular, thoracic, and valve procedures (first procedure = index). Patients were grouped by presence vs absence of disruptive bleeding. Outcomes evaluated during index included intensive care unit (ICU) admission/duration, ventilator use, operating room time, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and total hospital costs; 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission was also evaluated. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the association of disruptive bleeding with outcomes, adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital/provider characteristics.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The study included 51,448 patients; 16% had disruptive bleeding (range 1.5% for cholecystectomy to 44.4% for valve). In procedures for which ICU and ventilator use is not routine, disruptive bleeding was associated with significant increases in the risks of admission to ICU and requirement for ventilator (all p≤0.05). Across all procedures, disruptive bleeding was also associated with significant incremental increases in days spent in ICU (all p≤0.05, except CABG), LOS (all p≤0.05, except thoracic), and total hospital costs (all p≤0.05); 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission, in-hospital mortality, and operating room time were higher in the presence of disruptive bleeding and varied in statistical significance across procedures.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Disruptive bleeding was associated with substantial clinical and economic burden across a wide variety of surgical procedures. Findings emphasize the need for more effective and timely intervention for surgical bleeding events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37424958
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S411778
pii: 411778
pmc: PMC10327677
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
535-547Informations de copyright
© 2023 Johnston et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
SSJ and WD are employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. PT is an employee of Mu Sigma. MA and PT provided data and analysis support under contract to Johnson & Johnson. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Sep;25(9):2387-2397
pubmed: 33206328
Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):626-33
pubmed: 19433995
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jul;47(7):1791-1796
pubmed: 33468371
J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9
pubmed: 1607900
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Jul 22;7:409-21
pubmed: 26229495
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Sep;138(3):687-93
pubmed: 19698857
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 May;143(5):1109e-1117e
pubmed: 31033841
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Apr 2;14(1):64
pubmed: 30940172
Am Heart J. 2012 Mar;163(3):522-9
pubmed: 22424026
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Jan 08;13:19-29
pubmed: 33447063
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Dec;39(12):2135-43
pubmed: 23942857
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 May 31;11:135
pubmed: 21627788
J Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;123(4):986-996
pubmed: 33577718