Low-severity short-stay heart failure patients had significantly lower hospital mortality (0.2% vs 1.5%, p<0.001) and 30-day readmissions (8.1% vs 10.5%) compared to high-severity patients.
Cohort (n=301,672)
Yes
What are the characteristics, processes of care, and outcomes of low-severity versus high-severity short-stay heart failure hospitalizations?
Nearly half of short-stay heart failure hospitalizations are low-severity admissions primarily for fluid management, representing a potential target for admission avoidance and cost savings.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.2% vs 1.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Background: Two-thirds of the 1 million annual US CHF hospitalizations are for diuresis only; some may be avoidable. We describe a population of low-severity short-stay (2. We compared baseline characteristics, processes of care, and outcomes in low-severity (CHF-L) to CHF-H. Results: Among 301,672 short-stay CHF patients, 135,304 (44.8%) were CHF-L. Compared to CHF-H, CHF-L was younger (70.5 ± 14.1 vs 72.1 ± 13.6 years, p < 0.001), more commonly female (48.6% vs 45.8%, p < 0.001), and more likely to receive IV ACE-I/ARB agents (0.5% vs 0.4%, p = 0.003). Most other IV medications were more common in CHF-H, and anticoagulation was the most prevalent non-diuretic IV therapy in both groups (23.8% vs 33.3%, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality (0.2% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001) and CHF-related 30-day readmissions (8.1% vs 10.5%, p < 0.001) were lower in CHF-L than CHF-H. Conclusion: Among short-stay CHF patients, nearly ½ meet criteria for CHF-L, and are mainly admitted for fluid management. Avoiding these admissions could result in substantial savings.
Zilberberg et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Congestive Heart Failure (n=301,672). Low-severity CHF (CHF-L) vs. High-severity CHF (CHF-H) was evaluated on Hospital mortality (p=<0.001). Low-severity short-stay heart failure patients had significantly lower hospital mortality (0.2% vs 1.5%, p<0.001) and 30-day readmissions (8.1% vs 10.5%) compared to high-severity patients.