Healthcare use at the end of life of patients with congenital heart disease: does heart failure matter?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Research Foundation Flanders (to PM, EG, and LVB) European Society of Cardiology (Nursing Training Grant to LVB) Background Heart failure (HF) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Although limited in scope, previous studies suggest that patients with heart failure follow a specific end-of-life trajectory with episodes of serious complications, which may impact the patterns of care as death approaches. Aims The study aims to identify differences in characteristics and patterns of care in the last year of life in deceased CHD patients with and without HF. Methods This retrospective study used data of deceased adult patients included in the BELgian COngenital heart disease Database combining Administrative and Clinical data (BELCODAC). To describe patterns of care in the last year of life, we captured information about hospitalisations, emergency department visits, and visits to the general practitioner using nomenclature codes. Heart failure was identified as having HF as cause of death and/or at least one prescription of a loop diuretic in the last year of life. Sensitivity analyses with a stricter definition for HF (HF as cause of death or ≥ 1 prescription of a loop diuretic combined with a prescription of digoxin, dopamine, dobutamine, other non-glycoside stimulants, metoprolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, aldosterone antagonists, ACE inhibitors or ARBs) were performed as well. Results During the period 2007–2016, 390 adults with CHD died, of which 170 patients with HF (44%). Patients with HF were older, died more often due to a cardiovascular cause of death, and had more complex heart lesions, compared to patients without HF (Table 1). While the number of emergency department visits and hospitalisations in the last year was similar, patients with HF had almost twice as much monthly visits at the general practitioner in their last year of life (Table 1). As shown in Figure 1, the mean number of hospitalisations and emergency department visits increased in a similar fashion throughout the last year of life, but the pattern of general practitioner visits was substantially different for patients with and without HF. The sensitivity analyses, in which a stricter definition for HF was used, yield very similar results. In these analyses, the difference in mean monthly hospitalisations was also significant between the two groups. Conclusions This study shows clinically important differences in characteristics and patterns of care of deceased patients with CHD with and without heart failure. Patients with HFhave different needs and should receive a tailored approach at the end of life. Future research is needed to understand these differences and investigate these patients' end-of-life care needs in more detail. Funding acknowledgments: This work was supported by Research Foundation Flanders; European Society of Cardiology; the King Baudouin Foundation; the National Foundation on Research in Pediatric Cardiology; and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare-FORTE.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».