» Articles » PMID: 35393507

Identifying Prognostic Factors for Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Four High-volume Surgical Treatments Using Routinely Collected Hospital Data

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2022 Apr 8
PMID 35393507
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Identifying prognostic factors (PFs) is often costly and labor-intensive. Routinely collected hospital data provide opportunities to identify clinically relevant PFs and construct accurate prognostic models without additional data-collection costs. This multicenter (66 hospitals) study reports on associations various patient-level variables have with outcomes and costs. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, 30-day readmission, 30-day reintervention and in-hospital costs. Candidate PFs were age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, prior hospitalizations, prior days spent in hospital, and socio-economic status. Included patients dealt with either colorectal carcinoma (CRC, n = 10,254), urinary bladder carcinoma (UBC, n = 17,385), acute percutaneous coronary intervention (aPCI, n = 25,818), or total knee arthroplasty (TKA, n = 39,214). Prior hospitalization significantly increased readmission risk in all treatments (OR between 2.15 and 25.50), whereas prior days spent in hospital decreased this risk (OR between 0.55 and 0.95). In CRC patients, women had lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.64), ICU admittance (OR 0.68) and 30-day reintervention (OR 0.70). Prior hospitalization was the strongest PF for higher costs across all treatments (31-64% costs increase/hospitalization). Prognostic model performance (c-statistic) ranged 0.67-0.92, with Brier scores below 0.08. R-squared ranged from 0.06-0.19 for LoS and 0.19-0.38 for costs. Identified PFs should be considered as building blocks for treatment-specific prognostic models and information for monitoring patients after surgery. Researchers and clinicians might benefit from gaining a better insight into the drivers behind (costs) prognosis.

Citing Articles

Explainable time-series deep learning models for the prediction of mortality, prolonged length of stay and 30-day readmission in intensive care patients.

Deng Y, Liu S, Wang Z, Wang Y, Jiang Y, Liu B Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9:933037.

PMID: 36250092 PMC: 9554013. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.933037.

References
1.
van Walraven C, Austin P, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster A . A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care. 2009; 47(6):626-33. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819432e5. View

2.
Wakeam E, Molina G, Shah N, Lipsitz S, Chang D, Gawande A . Variation in the cost of 5 common operations in the United States. Surgery. 2017; 162(3):592-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.04.016. View

3.
Vester M, Eindhoven D, Bonten T, Wagenaar H, Holthuis H, Schalij M . Utilization of diagnostic resources and costs in patients with suspected cardiac chest pain. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2020; 7(6):583-590. PMC: 9172873. DOI: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa064. View

4.
Eindhoven D, van Staveren L, van Erkelens J, Ikkersheim D, Cannegieter S, Umans V . Nationwide claims data validated for quality assessments in acute myocardial infarction in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J. 2017; 26(1):13-20. PMC: 5758448. DOI: 10.1007/s12471-017-1055-3. View

5.
Gutacker N, Bloor K, Bojke C, Walshe K . Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?. Health Policy. 2018; 122(6):660-666. PMC: 6022214. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.004. View