Search

Background: There are no prospective studies comparing hospitalization and post-hospitalization outcomes between teaching internal medicine services and non-teaching hospitalists, and no prospective studies comparing these outcomes between locum and employed hospitalists. Objective: To compare the length of stay, hospital costs readmission rate, and mortality rate in patients treated by teaching internal medicine services vs. hospitalists and among patients treated by locum vs. employed hospitalists. Design: Prospective cohort study. Propensity score was used to obtain weighted estimates. Setting: Referral center. Patients: All patients 18 years and older admitted to internal medicine services. Intervention: Treatment by teaching internal medicine services vs. hospitalists. Treatment by locum hospitalists vs. employed hospitalists. Main Measures: Primary outcome was adjusted length of stay and secondary outcomes included hospital cost, inpatient mortality, 30-day all-cause readmission, and 30-day mortality. Key Results: A total of 1273 patients were admitted in the study period. The mean patient age was 61 ± 19 years, and the sample was 52% females. Teaching internal medicine physicians admitted 526 patients and non-teaching hospitalists admitted 747 patients. Being seen exclusively by teaching internal medicine physicians comports with a shorter adjusted hospital stay by 0.6 days (95% CI − 1.07 to − 0.22, P =.003) compared to non-teaching hospitalists. Adjusted length of stay was 1 day shorter in patients seen exclusively by locums compared to patients seen exclusively by employed services (95% CI − 1.6 to − 0.43, P <.001) with an adjusted average hospital cost saving of 1339 dollars (95% CI − 2037 to − 642, P <.001). There was no statistically significant difference in other outcomes. Conclusions: Teaching internal medicine services care was associated with a shorter stay but not with increased costs, readmission, or mortality compared to non-teaching services. In contrary to the "expected," patients treated by locums had shorter stays and decreased hospital costs but no increase in readmissions or mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Adjuvant heart failure (HF) drug therapy in patients undergoing chronic mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is often used in conjunction with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD), but its potential impact is not well defined. The objective of the present study was to examine the effects of conventional HF drug therapy on myocardial structure and function, peripheral organ function and the incidence of adverse events in the setting of MCS.Methods and Results: Patients with chronic HF requiring LVAD support were prospectively enrolled. Paired myocardial tissue samples were obtained prior to LVAD implantation and at transplantation for histopathology. The Meds group comprised patients treated with neurohormonal blocking therapy (concurrent beta-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and aldosterone antagonist), and the No Meds group comprised patients on none of these. Both the Meds (n = 37) and No Meds (n = 44) groups experienced significant improvements in cardiac structure and function over the 6 months following LVAD implantation. The degree of improvement was greater in the Meds group, including after adjustment for baseline differences. There were no differences between the two groups in arrhythmias, end-organ injury, or neurological events. In patients with high baseline pre-LVAD myocardial fibrosis, treatment with HF drug therapy was associated with a reduction in fibrosis.Conclusions: Clinical and histopathological evidence showed that adjuvant HF drug therapy was associated with additional favourable effects on the structure and function of the unloaded myocardium that extended beyond the beneficial effects attributed to LVAD-induced unloading alone. Adjuvant HF drug therapy did not influence the incidence of major post-LVAD adverse events during the follow-up period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]