Trends in Heart Failure Care: Has the Incident Diagnosis of Heart Failure Shifted from the Hospital to the Emergency Department and Outpatient Clinics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Studies of heart failure (HF) incidence and prevalence frequently rely on hospitalization to identify patients. Our objective was to describe the incidence, prevalence, or outcomes for HF patients diagnosed in the outpatient or emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a population-based study of 82,323 HF patients in a single-payer health-care system in Alberta, Canada from 1999 to 2007, we examined trends over time and clinical outcomes. Heart failure patients were first diagnosed in a general outpatient clinic (45.7%), a specialty outpatient clinic (4.0%), the ED (13.7%), or in hospital (36.6%). From years 2000 to 2006, the age-standardized incidence (per 100 000 population) decreased from 538 to 403, whereas the overall prevalence increased from 1585 to 2510. One-year mortality was significantly different among patients first diagnosed in a general outpatient clinic (6.6%), a specialty outpatient clinic (7.5%), ED (19.1%), and hospital (29.8%). Patients initially diagnosed at the time of hospitalization had the fewest median days alive and out of hospital [347, inter-quartile range (IQR): 136-363] over the next year compared with patients in the ED (354, IQR 313-365), specialty outpatient clinic (365, IQR 355-365), and general outpatient clinics (365, IQR: 359-365, P < 0.0001). Patients in the ED had the highest rate of subsequent ED visits, and all-cause, cardiovascular, or HF hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, more patients were diagnosed as outpatients compared with a hospital setting. The trends observed in incidence, prevalence, and outcomes for patients with HF differ substantially depending on the location of initial diagnosis. Additionally, efforts to study patients with HF in the ED should be a priority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".