Key result
Omitting admission constipation prophylaxis in elderly HF patients on home laxatives linked to a ~2-day longer stay.
Why the study?
Little data exist on whether constipation prophylaxis reduces length of stay in elderly hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure.
Does constipation prophylaxis reduce length of stay in elderly hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure?
Observational (n=618)
No
Does constipation prophylaxis reduce length of stay in elderly hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure?
Routine use of bowel prophylaxis for elderly CHF patients with preexisting constipation may significantly reduce hospital length of stay.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Omission of constipation prophylaxis was associated with longer stay in elderly HF patients on home laxatives; leaves open whether routine use shortens LOS in trials.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Elderly, hospitalized patients suffer disproportionately from constipation; however, little data suggest that constipation prophylaxis reduces length of stay (LOS). We performed a retrospective analysis of elderly patients admitted to our hospital with congestive heart failure (CHF) to determine the effects of constipation prophylaxis on LOS. METHODS: Patients ≥ 65 years old admitted with the diagnosis of CHF in 2012 were evaluated for home and hospital laxative use on admission. Our primary outcome was LOS. We used linear regression modeling to independently evaluate the impact of constipation prophylaxis on LOS. RESULTS: Among 618 patients who were eligible for our study, 201 (32.5%) were using laxatives at home, whereas 254 (41.1%) were started on a prophylactic laxative on admission. There was no significant difference in LOS between patients receiving prophylaxis versus those who did not (P = 0.32). Patients with home laxative use had a 1 day longer LOS compared to those without laxative use (6 vs 5, P = 0.03). Among patients with home laxative use, there were 2 days longer LOS in those who were not given constipation prophylaxis on admission (8 vs 6, P = 0.002). After multivariate adjustment, failure to use constipation prophylaxis in patients with home laxative use was the only independent predictor of increased LOS (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly patients admitted for CHF exacerbations, failure to use constipation prophylaxis in patients with home laxative use is associated with a significantly longer LOS. Our data suggest that routine use of bowel prophylaxis for elderly CHF patients with preexisting constipation may reduce LOS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Staller et al. (2015) conducted an observational in congestive heart failure (CHF) (n=618). constipation prophylaxis vs. no constipation prophylaxis was evaluated on length of stay (LOS) (p=0.002). In elderly heart failure patients with home laxative use, failure to use constipation prophylaxis on admission was associated with a longer length of stay.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: