RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED)-based care is required for cirrhosis management, yet the burden of cirrhosis-related ED healthcare utilization is understudied. We aimed to describe ED utilization within a statewide health system and compare the outcomes of high ED use (HEDU) vs non-HEDU in individuals with cirrhosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of adults with cirrhosis who presented to any of 16 EDs within the Indiana University Health system in 2021. Patient characteristics, features of the initial ED visit, subsequent 90-day healthcare use, and 360-day outcomes were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors HEDU status which was defined as ≥2 ED visits within 90 days after the index ED visit. RESULTS: There were 2,124 eligible patients (mean age 61.3 years, 53% male, and 91% White). Major etiologies of cirrhosis were alcohol (38%), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (27%), and viral hepatitis (21%). Cirrhosis was newly diagnosed in the ED visit for 18.4%. Most common reasons for ED visits were abdominal pain (21%), shortness of breath (19%), and ascites/volume overload (16%). Of the initial ED visits, 20% (n = 424) were potentially avoidable. The overall 90-day mortality was 16%. Within 90 days, there were 366 HEDU (20%). Notable variables independently associated with HEDU were model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.044, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-1.085), prior ED encounter (aOR 1.520, 95% CI 1.136-2.034), and avoidable initial ED visit (aOR 1.938, 95% CI 1.014-3.703). DISCUSSION: Abdominal pain, shortness of breath, and ascites/fluid overload are the common presenting reasons for ED visits for patients with cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis presenting to the ED experience a 90-day mortality rate of 16%, and among those who initially visited the ED, 20% were HEDU. We identified several variables independently associated with HEDU. Our observations pave the way for developing interventions to optimize the care of patients with cirrhosis presenting to the ED and to lower repeated ED visits.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive finger-cuff monitors measuring cardiac index and vascular tone (SVRI) classify emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) into three otherwise-indistinguishable subgroups. Our goals were to validate these "hemodynamic profiles" in an external cohort and assess their association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: AHF patients (n = 257) from five EDs were prospectively enrolled in the validation cohort (VC). Cardiac index and SVRI were measured with a ClearSight finger-cuff monitor (formerly NexFin, Edwards Lifesciences) as in a previous study (derivation cohort, DC, n = 127). A control cohort (CC, n = 127) of ED patients with sepsis was drawn from the same study as the DC. K-means cluster analysis previously derived two-dimensional (cardiac index and SVRI) hemodynamic profiles in the DC and CC (k = 3 profiles each). The VC was subgrouped de novo into three analogous profiles by unsupervised K-means consensus clustering. PERMANOVA tested whether VC profiles 1-3 differed from profiles 1-3 in the DC and CC, by multivariate group composition of cardiac index and vascular tone. Profiles in the VC were compared by a primary outcome of 90-day mortality and a 30-day ranked composite secondary outcome (death, mechanical cardiac support, intubation, new/emergent dialysis, coronary intervention/surgery) as time-to-event (survival analysis) and binary events (odds ratio, OR). Descriptive statistics were used to compare profiles by two validated risk scores for the primary outcome, and one validated score for the secondary outcome. RESULTS: The VC had median age 60 years (interquartile range {49-67}), and was 45% (n = 116) female. Multivariate profile composition by cardiac index and vascular tone differed significantly between VC profiles 1-3 and CC profiles 1-3 (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.159). A difference was not detected between profiles in the VC vs. the DC (p = 0.59, R2 = 0.016). VC profile 3 had worse 90-day survival than profiles 1 or 2 (HR = 4.8, 95%CI 1.4-17.1). The ranked secondary outcome was more likely in profile 1 (OR = 10.0, 1.2-81.2) and profile 3 (12.8, 1.7-97.9) compared to profile 2. Diabetes prevalence and blood urea nitrogen were lower in the high-risk profile 3 (p<0.05). No significant differences between profiles were observed for other clinical variables or the 3 clinical risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic profiles in ED patients with AHF, by non-invasive finger-cuff monitoring of cardiac index and vascular tone, were replicated de novo in an external cohort. Profiles showed significantly different risks of clinically-important adverse patient outcomes.
