| 1. |
- Boman, Kurt, et al.
(author)
-
Healthcare resource utilization associated with heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction : a retrospective population-based cohort study in Sweden
- 2017
-
In: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : European Society of Cardiology. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 19:S1, s. 346-346
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and purpose: To estimate healthcare resource utilization among patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) versus reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction using population data from two Swedish counties.Methods: Patients with HF were identified via electronic medical records (EMRs) from primary and/or secondary care in Uppsala and Västerbotten, linked via unique identifiers to data from the National Patient Register and Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Local echocardiography data were used to identify HFpEF (defined as ejection fraction ≥50%) and HFrEF (defined as <50%). Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥2 diagnoses of HF between 01/01/2010 and 31/03/2015 and an ICD-10 diagnostic code of I50 (inclusive of all granular codes), I42.0, I42.6, I42.7, I42.9, I110, I130 or I132 in any position were included. Patients were followed from date of first diagnosis (index date) to end of study period or EMR collection, date of death or loss to follow-up for other reasons, whichever came first. Unadjusted all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related hospitalization rates were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model, accounting for age, sex, setting of first diagnosis (primary vs secondary care), HF phenotype and NT-proBNP level.Results: In total, 8702 patients with HF were identified. HF phenotype was known in 3167 patients; 64.6% had HFrEF, 35.4% had HFpEF. Patients with HFrEF were younger (mean±SD: 69.9±13.7 vs 74.2±12.6 years) with a lower Charlson comorbidity index (1.65 vs 1.83) than those with HFpEF. All-cause hospitalization rates were marginally lower for HFrEF than for HFpEF (mean [95% CI] proportion of patients hospitalized within 1 year of diagnosis, 72.5 [70.1–74.8]% vs 73.8 [70.7–77.0]%; hazard ratio [HR] over whole follow-up period, 0.87 [0.79–0.97], p=0.0093). The proportion of patients hospitalized was higher for those diagnosed in secondary care than in primary care, particularly within 1 year of diagnosis (1-year rate, 69.6 [68.3–71.0]% vs 59.1 [56.8–61.4]%; HR, 1.15 [1.07–1.23], p=0.0002). Similar trends were observed for CVD-related hospitalization rates for HFrEF vs HFpEF (1-year rate, 69.5 [67.1–71.9]% vs 70.7 [67.5–74.0]%; HR, 0.89 [0.81–0.99], p=0.0309) and for patients diagnosed in secondary vs primary care (1-year rate, 66.6 [65.3–68.0]% vs 56.2 [53.8–58.5]%; HR, 1.15 [1.07–1.24], p=0.0001). Numbers of hospitalizations and outpatient visits decreased with time after diagnosis for HFrEF, but increased slightly for HFpEF after 2 years (Figure). The mean±SD total number of all-cause days of hospitalization during the first year after diagnosis was lower in patients with HFrEF vs HFpEF (19.9±26.1 vs 26.3±34.5 days), while the number of HF-related days of hospitalization was similar (16.0±22.4 vs 17.2±24.0 days).Conclusions: Number and duration of hospital stays were significantly lower over time in patients with HFrEF than HFpEF; this may be explained by the comorbidity burden in the latter group.
|
|
