Rothberg M.B.,Center for Quality of Care Research
Journal of hospital medicine : an official publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine | Year: 2011
The Joint Commission requires that all medical inpatients be assessed for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, but available risk stratification tools have never been validated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients age ≥18 years, admitted to 374 US hospitals in 2004-2005, with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), stroke, and urinary tract infection, and length of stay ≥3 days. Subjects were randomly assigned (80/20) to a derivation or validation set. We then assessed VTE (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code plus diagnostic test plus treatment), patient demographics, 21 potential risk factors, and other comorbidities. We created a VTE risk stratification tool using multivariable regression modeling and applied it to the validation sample. Of 242,738 patients, 612 (0.25%) patients fulfilled our criteria for VTE during hospitalization, and an additional 440 (0.18%) were readmitted for VTE within 30 days (overall incidence of 0.43%). In the multivariable model, age, sex, and 10 additional risk factors were associated with VTE. The strongest risk factors were inherited thrombophilia (OR 4.00), length of stay ≥6 days (OR 3.22), inflammatory bowel disease (OR 3.11), central venous catheter (OR 1.87), and cancer. In the validation set, the model had a c-statistic of 0.75 (95% CI 0.71, 0.78). Deciles of predicted risk ranged from 0.11% to 1.46% with observed risk over the same deciles from 0.17% to 1.81%. The risk of symptomatic VTE in general medical patients is low. A risk factor model can identify those at sufficient risk to warrant pharmacologic prophylaxis. Copyright © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.
Bradford M.A.,Boston University |
Lindenauer P.K.,Center for Quality of Care Research |
Lindenauer P.K.,Baystate Medical Center |
Lindenauer P.K.,Tufts University |
And 4 more authors.
Critical Care Medicine | Year: 2014
Objectives: To assess the importance of including do-not-resuscitate status in critical care observational comparative effectiveness research. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: All California hospitals participating in the 2007 California State Inpatient Database, which provides do-not-resuscitate status within the first 24 hours of admission. Patients: Septic shock present at admission. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We investigated the association of early do-not-resuscitate status with in-hospital mortality among patients with septic shock. We also examined the strength of confounding of do-not-resuscitate status on the association between activated protein C therapy and mortality, an association with conflicting results between observational and randomized studies. We identified 24,408 patients with septic shock; 19.6% had a do-not-resuscitate order. Compared with patients without a donot-resuscitate order, those with a do-not-resuscitate order were significantly more likely to be older (75 ± 14 vs 67 ± 16 yr) and white (62% vs 53%), with more acute organ failures (1.44 ± 1.15 vs 1.38 ± 1.15), but fewer inpatient interventions (1.0 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 1.1). Adding do-not-resuscitate status to a model with 47 covariates improved mortality discrimination (c-statistic, 0.73-0.76; p < 0.001). Addition of do-not-resuscitate status to a multivariable model assessing the association between activated protein C and mortality resulted in a 9% shift in the activated protein C effect estimate toward the null (odds ratio from 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99], p = 0.04, to 0.85 [0.67-1.08], p = 0.18). Conclusions: Among patients with septic shock, do-not-resuscitate status acts as a strong confounder that may inform past discrepancies between observational and randomized studies of activated protein C. Inclusion of early do-not-resuscitate status into more administrative databases may improve observational comparative effectiveness methodology. © 2014 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Walkey A.J.,Boston University |
Wiener R.S.,Boston University |
Wiener R.S.,Center for Health Quality |
Wiener R.S.,Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice |
And 2 more authors.
Critical Care Medicine | Year: 2013
OBJECTIVES: In 2001, a randomized trial showed decreased mortality with early, goal-directed therapy in septic shock, a strategy later recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Placement of a central venous catheter is necessary to administer goal-directed therapy. We sought to evaluate nationwide trends in: 1) central venous catheter utilization and 2) the association between early central venous catheter insertion and mortality in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed the proportion of septic shock cases receiving an early (day of admission) central venous catheter and the odds of hospital mortality associated with receiving early central venous catheter from years 1998 to 2001 compared with 2002 to 2009. SETTING: Non-federal acute care hospitalizations from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1998-2009. PATIENTS: A total of 203,481 (population estimate: 999,545) patients admitted through an emergency department with principal diagnosis of septicemia and secondary diagnosis of shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 1998 to 2009, population-adjusted rates of septic shock increased from 12.6 cases per 100,000 U.S. adults to 78 cases per 100,000. During this time, age-adjusted hospital mortality associated with septic shock declined from 40.4% to 31.4%. Early central venous catheter insertion increased from 5.7% (95% confidence interval 5.1% to 6.3%) to 19.2% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to 19.5%) cases with septic shock, with an increased rate of early central venous catheter placement identified after 2007. The rate of decline in age-adjusted hospital mortality was significantly greater for patients who received an early central venous catheter (-4.2% per year, 95% confidence interval -3.2, -4.2%) as compared with no central venous catheter (-2.9% per year, 95% confidence interval -2.3, -3.5%; p = 0.016). Hospital mortality associated with early central venous catheter insertion significantly decreased from a multivariable-adjusted odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.14-1.45) prior to 2001 to an adjusted odds ratio of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.84-0.90) after 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a central venous catheter early in septic shock has increased three-fold since 1998. The mortality associated with early central venous catheter insertion decreased after publication of evidence-based instructions for central venous catheter use. Copyright © 2013 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Auerbach A.D.,University of California at San Francisco |
Vittinghoff E.,University of California at San Francisco |
Maselli J.,University of California at San Francisco |
Pekow P.S.,University of Massachusetts Amherst |
And 4 more authors.
JAMA Internal Medicine | Year: 2013
Importance: Single-site studies have described an association between use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and adverse outcomes of surgery. Multicenter studies including a broad range of surgical procedures that explore rare outcomes, such as bleeding and mortality, and that account for indications for administration of SSRIs are needed. Objective: To determine whether perioperative use of SSRIs is associated with adverse outcomes of surgery in a national sample of patients. Design: Retrospective study of patients 18 years or older who underwent major surgery from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008, at 375 US hospitals. We used multivariable hierarchical models to estimate associations between SSRI use and our outcomes. Pharmacy data were used to determine whether a patient received an SSRI in the perioperative period. Setting: Three hundred seventy-five US hospitals. Participants: Five hundred thirty thousand four hundred sixteen patients 18 years or older. Exposure: Perioperative use of SSRIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality, length of stay, readmission at 30 days, bleeding events, transfusions, and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Results: Patients receiving SSRIs were more likely to have obesity, chronic pulmonary disease, or hypothyroidism (P < .001 for each) and more likely to have depression (41.0% vs 6.2%, P < .001). After adjustment, patients receiving SSRIs had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.07-1.36]), bleeding (1.09 [1.04-1.15]), and readmission at 30 days (1.22 [1.18-1.26]). Similar results were observed in propensity-matched analyses, although the risk of inpatient mortality was attenuated among patients with depression. Sensitivity analyses suggest that, to invalidate our results, an unmeasured covariate would have to have higher prevalence and be more strongly associated with mortality than any covariate included in our models. Conclusions and Relevance: Receiving SSRIs in the perioperative period is associated with a higher risk for adverse events. Determining whether patient factors or SSRIs themselves are responsible for elevated risks requires prospective study. ©2013 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Walkey A.J.,Boston University |
Lagu T.,Center for Quality of Care Research |
Lindenauer P.K.,Center for Quality of Care Research |
Lindenauer P.K.,Tufts University
Annals of the American Thoracic Society | Year: 2015
Rationale: Stakeholders seek to monitor processes and outcomes of care among patients with sepsis, but use of administrative data for sepsis surveillance is controversial. Prior studies using only principal diagnoses from claims data have shown a trend of rising sepsis incidence with falling infection incidence, implying that administrative data are inaccurate for sepsis surveillance. Objectives: Because a sepsis diagnosis often modifies an infection site diagnosis, we sought to investigate trends in sepsis and infection using both principal and secondary diagnoses in administrative data. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. We used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample years 2003 to 2009 to identify age-standardized, population-based trends in sepsis and infection using all available diagnosis codes. Infection sites were defined as bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract, skin/soft tissue, and gastrointestinal; codes for septicemia, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock were used to identify "sepsis." We identified patients with infection and mechanical ventilation to estimate incidence of severe sepsis without requiring specific claims for sepsis or acute organ failure. Measurements and Main Results: We identified 53.9 million adult infection hospitalizations during the years 2003 to 2009; average age was 63 years, 61% of patients were women, and 70% reported white race, 14% black, and 11% Hispanic ethnicity. Incidence of hospitalizations with an infection claim increased from 3,147/100,000 U.S. residents in 2003 to 3,480/100,000 in 2009 (11% increase), whereas hospitalizations with sepsis claims increased from 359/100,000 to 535/100,000 residents during the same time frame (49% increase); P = 0.009 between infection and sepsis trends. The proportion of infection hospitalizations with a sepsis claim increased from 7.5% in 2003 to 11.5% in 2009 (54% increase). The incidence of hospitalizations with both an infection and mechanical ventilation claim during 2003 was 173/100,000 as compared with 251/100,000 in 2009 (45% increase); P = 0.76 compared with sepsis trends. Conclusions: Sepsis claims are increasing at a greater rate than infection claims but are not inversely related. Trends in sepsis are similar to trends in infection cases requiring mechanical ventilation. Further studies should seek to identify the optimal algorithms to identify sepsis within administrative data and explore potential mechanisms for the increasing incidence of infection and sepsis in the United States. Copyright © 2015 by the American Thoracic Society.