Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 37(7): 820-7, 2014 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24484075

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of defibrillators (implantable cardioverter defibrillators [ICDs]) and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRTDs) has been shown to be cost effective, convenient, and associated with reduced mortality and a reduction in the time to physician intervention for actionable events. However, patient compliance with monitoring over time and what factors might influence such compliance have not been well described. This study sought to identify factors contributing to patient noncompliance with RM of ICDs and CRTDs in a large real-world population. METHODS: Deidentified data on U.S. patients enrolled in the Medtronic CareLink RM system were used to compare patients with no (noncompliant, n = 14,848) and with ≥ 2 RM transmissions (compliant, n = 103,284) during a 14-month period. RESULTS: Overall noncompliance with RM was 21%. Younger age (≤ 40), female sex, wanded device, Medicare Census Division, and small clinic size all predicted patient noncompliance (P < 0.01). Device type (ICD vs CRTD) did not (P = 0.52). Multivariate analysis suggested clinically important predictors of noncompliance to be: age ≤ 40, odds ratio (OR) 2.64 (95% confidence interval, 2.42-2.88); Medicare Census Division (Mountain vs West North Central), OR 2.15 (1.96-2.37); and small clinic size (1-4 vs >100 patients), OR 4.38 (3.92-4.91). CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in RM usage among enrolled patients. Younger patients, smaller clinics, and certain geographic areas may be targets for research into interventions to further improve the use of RM.


Assuntos
Dispositivos de Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Cooperação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Tecnologia de Sensoriamento Remoto , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 28: 10760296221137848, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36373759

RESUMO

The aim was to describe inpatients with COVID-19 empirically prescribed heparinoid anticoagulants and compare resource utilization between prophylactic/low-dose and therapeutic/high-dose groups. Methods: This retrospective observational study used real-world data from 880 US hospitals in the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database during 4/1/2020-11/30/2020. Descriptive analysis was used to characterize patients. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and costs by anticoagulation dose group, adjusting for cohort characteristics. Among 122,508 inpatients, 29,225 (23.9%) received therapeutic/high-dose, and 93,283 (76.1%) received prophylactic/low-dose anticoagulation. The high-dose group had more comorbidities and worse laboratory values compared with low-dose. Respectively, ICU admission rates were 36.7% and 19.1% and LOS median (Q1, Q3) was 8 (5, 15) and 5 (3, 9) days. In separate adjusted models, high-dose anticoagulation was associated with a 45% increase in odds of ICU admission, 26% increase in odds of in-hospital mortality, 21% longer average LOS, and 28% greater average total cost compared with low-dose (each P < 0.001). Prophylactic/low-dose anticoagulation treatment was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.


Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Heparinoides , Humanos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Hospitalização , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estudos Retrospectivos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA