Causes and predictors of 30‐day readmission in patients with syncope/collapse: a nationwide cohort study

Background Syncope accounts for 0.6% to 1.5% of hospitalizations in the United States. We sought to determine the causes and predictors of 30‐day readmission in patients with syncope. Methods and Results We identified 323 250 encounters with a primary diagnosis of syncope/collapse in the 2013-2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database. We excluded patients younger than 18 years, those discharged in December, those who died during hospitalization, hospital transfers, and those whose length of stay was missing. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between baseline characteristics and 30‐day readmission. A total of 282 311 syncope admissions were included. The median age was 72 years (interquartile range, 58-83), 53.9% were women, and 9.3% had 30‐day readmission. The most common cause of 30‐day readmissions was syncope/collapse, followed by cardiac, neurological, and infectious causes. Characteristics associated with 30‐day readmissions were age 65 years and older (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.7), female sex (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9), atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.2-1.3), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.2-1.3), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), home with home healthcare disposition (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.5-1.6), leaving against medical advice (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.9), length of stay of 3 to 5 days (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.6) or >5 days (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.8-2), and having private insurance (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.6-0.7). Conclusions The 30‐day readmission rate after syncope/collapse was 9.3%. We identified causes and risk factors associated with readmission. Future prospective studies are needed to derive risk‐stratification models to reduce the high burden of readmissions.Revisión por pare

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

The role of B-type natriuretic peptide in diagnosing acute decompensated heart failure in chronic kidney disease patients

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients have higher serum B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), which alters the test interpretation. We aim to define BNP cutoff levels to diagnose acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in CKD according to CHF subtype: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Material and methods: We reviewed 1,437 charts of consecutive patients who were admitted for dyspnea. We excluded patients with normal kidney function, without measured BNP, echocardiography, or history of CHF. BNP cutoff values to diagnose ADHF for CKD stages according to CHF subtype were obtained for the highest pair of sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp). We calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR–, respectively), and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), as well as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for BNP. Results: We evaluated a cohort of 348 consecutive patients: 152 had ADHF, and 196 had stable CHF. In those with HFpEF with CKD stages 3–4, BNP 670 pg/ml rules in ADHF (Sp90%, LR+ = 4 and DOR = 6), with an AUC = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71–0.87). In contrast, in those with HFrEF with CKD stages 3–4, BNP 1166.5 pg/ml rules in ADHF (Sp87%, LR+ = 3.9 and DOR = 6.97) with an AUC = 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69–0.86). All LRs and DOR were statistically significant. Conclusions: BNP cutoff values for the diagnosis of ADHF in HFrEF were higher than those in HFpEF across CKD stages 3–4, with moderate discriminatory diagnostic ability.Revisión por pare

Invasive versus echocardiographic gradients in degenerated surgical aortic valve prostheses: A multicenter study

ObjectivesTo compare echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients obtained concomitantly in degenerated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves (SAVRs).MethodsIn a multicenter study, we compared concomitant echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients of SAVR, obtained before valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in all patients, patients with primary stenosis (AS), primary aortic regurgitation (AR), and mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), and in small versus large valves (≤ or >23 mm). Dimensionless index (DI) was calculated in all groups.ResultsIn total, 74 patients were included and data presented as median (interquartile range). Echocardiography-catheterization mean gradient discordance was observed in all patients (invasive = 22 mm Hg [11-34] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [21-42], P = .013), small valves (invasive = 15 mm Hg [8-34] vs echocardiographic = 28 mm Hg [21-41], P = .013), and large valves (invasive = 20 mm Hg [8.5-27.13] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [25.5 - 41.5], P < .0001), with a bias of 8 ± 15 mm Hg and wide limits of agreement (-22 to 39 mm Hg) on Bland-Altman plots, indicating these modalities may not be interchangeable. Discordance occurred in AR (invasive = 3 mm Hg [1-6] vs echocardiographic = 12 mm Hg [7-22], P = .017) and in MAVD (invasive = 19 mm Hg [12-29] vs echocardiographic = 31 mm Hg [23-39], P < .0001) but not in AS (invasive = 35 mm Hg [24-45] vs echocardiographic = 41 mm Hg [30-50], P = .45). A lower DI (0.21 [0.14-0.25]) occurred in AS compared with MAVD (0.31 [0.19-0.39]) and AR (0.55 [0.51-0.69]), P < .0001.ConclusionsDiscordance between echocardiography and invasive mean gradients exists in degenerated SAVR, regardless of valve size, but depends on mechanism of failure and DI helps stratify these patients. With a discrepancy between echocardiographic mean gradients AND the patient's symptoms OR the valve leaflet structure and/or mobility on imaging, especially before redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement, invasive gradients may adjudicate the true valvular hemodynamics

Prevalence of venous thromboembolism in admissions and readmissions with and without syncope: A nationwide cohort study

Aims: The Pulmonary Embolism in Syncope Italian Trial reported 17.3% prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients admitted with syncope. We investigated the prevalence of venous thromboembolism [VTE, including PE and deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] in syncope vs. non-syncope admissions and readmissions, and if syncope is an independent predictor of VTE. Methods and results: We conducted an observational study of index admissions of the 2013-14 Nationwide Readmission Database.National Institutes of HealthRevisión por pare

Prevalence of venous thromboembolism in admissions and readmissions with and without syncope: a nationwide cohort study

AIMS: The Pulmonary Embolism in Syncope Italian Trial reported 17.3% prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients admitted with syncope. We investigated the prevalence of venous thromboembolism [VTE, including PE and deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] in syncope vs. non-syncope admissions and readmissions, and if syncope is an independent predictor of VTE. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an observational study of index admissions of the 2013-14 Nationwide Readmission Database. We excluded patients \u3c18 \u3eyears, December discharges, died during hospitalization, hospital transfers, and missing length of stay. Encounters were stratified by the presence or absence of DVT/PE and syncope diagnoses. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between syncope and VTE. There were 38 655 570 admissions, of whom 285 511 had syncope. In the overall cohort, syncope occurred in 1.6% of VTE and 1.8% in non-VTE admissions. In a multivariable model, syncope was associated with a lower prevalence of VTE [odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.78; P \u3c 0.001]. In index syncope vs. non-syncope admissions, the prevalence of DVT, PE, and VTE were 0.4 ± 0.06% vs. 1.3 ± 0.12%, 0.2 ± 0.04% vs. 1.2 ± 0.11%, and 0.5 ± 0.07% vs. 2.1 ± 0.14% (all P \u3c 0.001), respectively. At 30 days, the prevalence of DVT, PE, and VTE in syncope vs. non-syncope were 2.2 ± 0.14% vs. 2.1 ± 0.14% (P = 0.38), 1.4 ± 0.12% vs. 1.2 ± 0.11% (P = 0.01), and 2.6 ± 0.17% vs. 3.0 ± 0.17% (P = 0.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: Syncope admissions were associated with a lower prevalence of VTE as compared to non-syncope admissions. Syncope should not trigger an automatic PE workup, rather, should be put into context of patient presentation