Search

There are concerns about the potential effect of social distancing used to control COVID-19 on the incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Retrospective cohort study. We examined the association between lockdown and CVD incidence in a Zero-COVID country, New Caledonia. Inclusion criteria were defined by a positive troponin sample during hospitalization. The study period lasted for 2 months, starting March 20, 2020 (strict lockdown: first month; loose lockdown: second month) compared with the same period of the three previous years to calculate incidence ratio (IR). Demographic characteristics and main CVD diagnoses were collected. The primary endpoint was the change in incidence of hospital admission with CVD during lockdown compared with the historical counterpart. The secondary endpoint included influence of strict lockdown, change in incidence of the primary endpoint by disease, and outcome incidences (intubation or death) analyzed with inverse probability weighting method. A total of 1215 patients were included: 264 in 2020 vs 317 (average of the historical period). CVD hospitalizations were reduced during strict lockdown (IR 0.71 [0.58–0.88]), but not during loose lockdown (IR 0.94 [0.78–1.12]). The incidence of acute coronary syndromes was similar in both periods. The incidence of acute decompensated heart failure was reduced during strict lockdown (IR 0.42 [0.24–0.73]), followed by a rebound (IR 1.42 [1–1.98]). There was no association between lockdown and short-term outcomes. Our study showed that lockdown was associated with a striking reduction in CVD hospitalizations, independently from viral spread, and a rebound of acute decompensated heart failure hospitalizations during looser lockdown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) hospital rankings remain the most publicly referenced system for identifying top hospitals for each specialty. The current study aims to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and costs for patients undergoing anatomic TSA (ATSA) or reverse TSA (RTSA) for degenerative pathologies at ranked vs. non–ranked hospitals. The 2011-2014 USNWR hospital rankings were used to identify ranked hospitals in "Orthopedics." The 2011-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) were used to identify patients undergoing ATSA or RTSA for degenerative arthritis. The study cohort was divided into two groups, based on whether patients received surgery at a ranked hospital vs. a non–ranked hospital. Multi-variate logistic and linear regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes and costs between ranked and non–ranked hospitals, while controlling for potential co-variates/confounders. A total of 82,417 TSA were included in the study – out of which 8,868 (10.8%) were performed in one of the 68 hospitals that were ranked by the USNWR between 2011 and 2014. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, and clinical characteristics, there were no statistically significant differences between ranked vs. non–ranked hospitals, with regards to rates of infectious complications (0.8% vs. 1.0%, OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.82-1.01]; P =.079), dislocations (0.8% vs. 0.9%, OR 1.07 [95% CI 0.79-1.43]; P =.658), peri-prosthetic fractures (0.3% vs. 0.3%, OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.47-1.21]; P =.269), pulmonary embolism (0.7% vs. 0.8%, OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.20]; P =.435), deep venous thrombosis (1.1% vs. 0.9%, OR 1.21 [95% CI 0.93-1.56]; P =.153), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs. 0.5%, OR 1.00 [95% CI 0.67-1.46]; P =.995), sepsis (6.0% vs. 7.3%, OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.85-1.05]; P =.314), urinary tract infections (4.8% vs. 5.6%, OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.11]; P =.831) and readmissions (7.1% vs. 8.3%, OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.82-1.01]; P =.079). Ranked hospitals, however, did have higher risk-adjusted charges (+ $6,167; P <.001), and costs (+ $1.831; P <.001) across the entire episode of care. Based on our findings, patients undergoing TSA at ranked hospitals vs. non–ranked hospitals have similar outcomes, despite the former facilities having higher costs and charges across the episode of care. Level III [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We adopted a difference-in-difference (DID) design to evaluate the impact of a case-based payment pilot in Tianjin, China on hospital admission, utilization of varied therapeutic regimes, and the associated costs. We used claim data of all admissions of angina and acute myocardial infarction during July 2015 to June 2018, 18 months before and after the program. Our analyses were supported by convincing common trends tests and a couple of sensitivity analyses. As intended, for patients who received percutaneous coronary stenting (PCS) and were counted in the case-based payment system, we showed that the program decreased length-of-stay, per-admission spending, and out-of-pocket spending by 20.8%, 14.2%, and 95.5%, respectively, but did not increase readmissions. However, when considering all patients who suffered from the two types of coronary heart diseases, we found that the program otherwise increased per-admission spending by nearly 11%. As a result, the program took a perverse effect in increasing monthly spending for the health insurance scheme and the society by 1005.6 thousand USD (47·5%) and 1095·7 thousand USD (34·7%), respectively. Increases in hospital admissions, and proportion of performing PCS accounted for 66·7% and 39·2% of the rise, respectively. In addition, our analysis provided evidence of health providers' cream-skimming behaviors, including selecting younger patients with lower CCI in the case-based system, up-coding complications, and keeping higher cost patients in the fee-for-service payment system. We draw lessons that case-based payment may make an unintended impact that increases healthcare costs when incentives are not properly designed. • The case-based payment pilot decreased per-admission costs for case-mixes included. • For the specific diseases, the program however increased per-admission spending. • Admissions receiving high cost therapeutic regimes accounted for the rise. • The program decreased LOS and OOP costs but did not increase readmissions. • Patient selection and up-coding were profound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ageing of the population is leading to an increase in the number of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. These patients are at higher risk for complications and poor medication adherence, which in turn are associated with higher healthcare resource expenditures. Nursing programmes might help to improve adherence in these complex patients. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a nursing intervention on therapeutic adherence in elderly patients after myocardial infarction compared to a control group. A single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Heart disease institute of a tertiary care hospital. Patients aged ≥75 years with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed during the admission in all patients (N=143). Patients were randomly allocated to a nursing intervention group (n=68) or a usual care group (n=75). In patients from the intervention group, a nursing intervention programme was performed 3 months after admission based on education support and patient monitoring to improve therapeutic adherence. The main outcome measured was 12-months therapeutic adherence, as defined by a combination of measurement tools (Morisky-Green and Hayness-Sacket scales, attendance at visits and withdrawal of medication from the pharmacy). Therapeutic adherence was assessed by nurses blinded to the assignment group. The mean age was 82.2 years. The proportion of comorbidities was significant (diabetes mellitus 51/143 (35.7%), hypertension 110/143 (76.9%), prior stroke 22/143 (15.4%)). Likewise, the proportion of geriatric syndromes was noticeable (frailty 26/143 (18.2%), risk of malnutrition 38/143 (26.6%), cognitive impairment 28/143 (19.6%)). Most patients (92.3%) had a low educational level. A total of 119 patients achieved 12-month assessment adherence. Among these patients, the proportions of adherence were as follows: Morisky-Green test: 76/119 (63.9%), Haynes-Sackett test 99/119 (83.2%), medical visits compliance 95/119 (79.8%), and correct acquisition of drugs in the pharmacy 74/119 (62.2%). A total of 42/119 patients (35.3%) were adherent as defined by the combination of the 4 measures. Therapeutic adherence at 12 months was achieved in a significantly higher proportion of patients from the nursing intervention group (51.9% vs 21.5%, p<0.001). A significant proportion of elderly patients with myocardial infarction were non-adherent at 12 months. The proportion of adherent patients was highly variable according to the different tools used. A structured nursing intervention was independently associated with a higher adherence rate, as assessed by a multidimensional measurement, in this subset of complex high-risk elderly patients with myocardial infarction. Trial registration: Registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04662762) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]