RESUMO
Introduction: Hospitalizations of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) lead to an explosion of expenditure on the public health system or private health expenses in family budgets. This study aims to estimate the duration and the cost of hospitalization for the public health system or the private cost to patients hospitalized after an AF episode. Material and Methods: Two hundred thirty-five consecutive patients (141 men and 94 women with an average age of 71.91 ± 12.2 years) who presented with AF to the Emergency Department of the General Hospital of Veroia during a single year were studied. We assessed the possible causes of arrhythmia, the duration and outcome of hospitalization, and the cost of hospitalization. We estimated the total cost by adding the price of the drugs used to cardiovert and the money spent on the patient's hospitalization. Results: The average hospitalization time was 2.37 ± 1.17 days, and the average cost of hospitalization (total cost) was 488.22 ± 170.34. There was a significant correlation between the severity of the episode and the total cost (r =0.78, p<0.0001), with 87.6 % of the total cost ( 427.76 ± 135.86) being related to the cost of hospitalization (imaging, laboratory, hospitalization) and the rest to the drug therapy cost. Amiodarone (97 patients, 41.1 %), flecainide (52 patients, 22 %), propafenone (68 patients, 28.8 %), vernakalant (two patients, 0.8 %), and quinidine (eight patients, 3.4 %) were utilized. Conclusion: The average cost of hospital care in patients with AF is significantly related to the severity of the episode. Effective drug therapy to reduce AF-provoking factors, such as antihypertensive therapy, combined with cardiovascular disease prevention in general, could reduce the morbidity and costs of AF-related hospitalizations. HIPPOKRATIA 2023, 27 (1):18-21.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: During recent years, several recommendations and guidelines regarding cardiac pacing have been published in the literature. However, only a few studies have examined the implementation of these guidelines in clinical practice. The current study aimed to record and evaluate the effects of the mainstream studies, and the experience gathered by all patients who have been followed-up at the pacemaker Unit of Veroia Hospital, which is a secondary care center. METHODS AND RESULTS: Epidemiological, clinical, and electrocardiographic data were collected and studied for patients with a permanent pacemaker that have been followed-up in our hospital from 2002 to 2017. The total number of patients of the study was 3,902 (2,164 men; 55.45 %) with a mean age of 73.4 ± 12.6 years. Third degree atrioventricular (AV) block was the most common cause of pacing. Dysfunction of the sinus node involved the majority of cases with bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome. At 18 patients, the cause of permanent pacemaker implantation was carotid sinus syndrome and at 13 of them, cardio-vascular type of neurocardiogenic syncope. Dizziness and syncope were the most common symptoms. Dual-chamber pacing was the most common type of pacing, which has been increasing in recent years. In follow-up visits, the most frequent examinations concerned battery condition, as the stimulation and sensing threshold. Reprogramming of the device was required in 1,434 patients (36.75 %), especially during the first year after implantation. CONCLUSION: Pacing indications have been unchanged during all the years of the study and have been based on confirmed bradycardia and major symptoms. Reprogramming of the device was needed in an increased number of patients. HIPPOKRATIA 2018, 22(2): 75-79.
