RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Higher-than-expected heart failure (HF) readmissions affect half of US hospitals every year. The Hospital Reduction Readmission Program has reduced risk-adjusted readmissions, but it has also produced unintended consequences. Shared care models have been advocated for HF care, but the association of shared care networks with HF readmissions has never been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the association of shared care networks with 30-day HF excessive readmission rates using a longitudinal observational study. METHODS: We curated publicly available data on hospital discharges and HF excessive readmission ratios from hospitals in California between 2012 and 2017. Shared care areas were delineated as data-driven units of care coordination emerging from discharge networks. The localization index, the proportion of patients who reside in the same shared care area in which they are admitted, was calculated by year. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the association between the localization index and the excessive readmission ratio of hospitals controlling for race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: A total of 300 hospitals in California in a 6-year period were included. The HF excessive readmission ratio was negatively associated with the adjusted localization index (ß=-.0474, 95% CI -0.082 to -0.013). The percentage of Black residents within the shared care areas was the only statistically significant covariate (ß=.4128, 95% CI 0.302 to 0.524). CONCLUSIONS: Higher-than-expected HF readmissions were associated with shared care networks. Control mechanisms such as the Hospital Reduction Readmission Program may need to characterize and reward shared care to guide hospitals toward a more organized HF care system.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Prognosis for patients with locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EAC) is poor with surgery alone, and adjuvant therapy after open esophagectomy is frequently not tolerated. After minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE); however, earlier return to normal function may render patients better able to receive adjuvant therapy. We examined whether primary MIE followed by adjuvant chemotherapy influenced survival compared with propensity-matched patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Patients with stage II or higher EAC treated with MIE (N = 375) were identified. Using 30 pretreatment covariates, propensity for assignment to either neoadjuvant followed by MIE (n = 183; 54%) or MIE as primary therapy (n = 156; 46%) was calculated, generating 97 closely matched pairs. Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, comorbidity, and final pathologic stage. RESULTS: In propensity-matched pairs, adjusted hazard ratio for death did not differ significantly for primary MIE compared with neoadjuvant (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.16). Recurrence patterns were similar between groups and 65% of patients with IIb or greater pathologic stage received adjuvant therapy. Clinical staging was inaccurate in 37 out of 105 patients (35%) who underwent primary MIE (n = 18 upstaged and n = 19 downstaged). CONCLUSIONS: Primary MIE followed by adjuvant chemotherapy guided by pathologic findings did not negatively influence survival and allowed for accurate staging compared with clinical staging. Our data suggest that primary MIE in patients with resectable EAC may be a reasonable approach, improving stage-based prognostication and potentially minimizing overtreatment in patients with early stage disease through accurate stage assignments. A randomized controlled trial testing this hypothesis is needed.