Trends in Hospitalizations of Esophageal Varices From 2011 to 2018: A United States Nationwide Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Prevalence of gastroesophageal varices is around 50% of patients with cirrhosis. In compensated cirrhosis they are present in 30-40%. Progression from small to large varices occurs at rate of 10-12% annually. That percentage increases significantly in decompensated liver cirrhosis with gastroesophageal varices found in 85% of patients. Variceal hemorrhage occurs at a rate around 10-15% per year. The outcome of variceal hemorrhage depends on the severity of liver disease, size of varices, and presence of stigmata of recent bleeding (red whale sign). Six-week mortality of variceal hemorrhage ranges between 15% and 25%. Without treatment, variceal hemorrhage tends to recur in 60% of patients within 1 - 2 years. The aim of the study was to assess demographics of esophageal varices with and without bleeding, geographic distribution, comorbidities, outcomes, main payers, and cost of hospitalizations. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from year 2011 to 2018 was used. Patients who had a primary diagnosis of esophageal varices with or without bleeding were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (456.0 for esophageal varices with bleeding, and 456.1 for esophageal varices without bleeding), and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes (I85.01 for esophageal varices with bleeding, and I85.00 for esophageal varices without bleeding) in the first two discharge diagnoses. The propensity score to calculate the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust between the differences of the compared groups was implemented. Two groups were compared in terms of their hospitalization outcomes, including LOS, hospital charges, hospital mortality, and disposition. Results: A total of 322,761 patients were admitted with esophageal varices between 2011 and 2018, with 236,802 (73.6%) had bleeding esophageal varices and 85,959 (26.4%) had nonbleeding esophageal varices. The majority of the patients from both groups were white (66%), covered with Medicare (38% in the esophageal varices with bleeding vs. 41% in the nonbleeding group). There was a steady increase of patients admitted with nonbleeding esophageal varices. Most common comorbidities were liver diseases, alcohol abuse, uncomplicated hypertension and depression in both groups. There were no significant changes in OLS over the years in both groups, but there was a significant increase in hospital charges, especially in the patients with bleeding esophageal varices starting in 2015, and no change in mortality throughout the years. Regarding hospital disposition, there was a notable decline in rehab discharge in the bleeding esophageal varices group. Conclusions: Esophageal varices with and without bleeding have been steadily increasing since the beginning of this century. This may result in a substantial impact on increasing health care costs and utilization due to acute variceal hemorrhage. Odds of death, transfer to urban hospital, and transfer to visiting nursing assistance remained unchanged.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».