4.6 Article

Resource Utilization and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis in Children

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 165, 期 4, 页码 807-U477

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.06.026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate resource use and outcomes of infective endocarditis in children with and without preexisting heart disease via a national cohort. Study design Children < 19 years of age hospitalized from 2004 to 2010 with infective endocarditis at 37 centers in the Pediatric Health Information Systems database were included. We excluded children primarily hospitalized for chronic medical conditions. We used regression analysis to evaluate factors associated with poor outcomes (defined as mortality, mechanical cardiac support, or stroke). Results There were 1033 cases of infective endocarditis, of which 663 had heart disease and 370 did not. Compared with the group without heart disease, infective endocarditis in the cohort with heart disease occurred at younger age, was more commonly attributable to streptococcus, was more likely to require cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis, and was associated with a lower risk of stroke. Mortality was 6.7% (n = 45) and 3.5% (n = 13) in groups with and without heart disease, respectively. Factors associated with poor outcome in the cohort with heart disease included greater risk of mortality score (OR 7.9), mechanical ventilation (OR 3.1), use of antiarrhythmics (OR 2.7), and use of vasoactive medications (OR 3.8). In the cohort without heart disease, factors associated with poor outcome included renal failure (OR 19.3), greater risk of mortality score (OR 4.2), use of antiarrhythmics (OR 3.8), and mechanical ventilation (OR 2.2). Median charge of hospitalization was $131 893 in the group without heart disease and $140 655 in the group with heart disease. Conclusion Infective endocarditis remains a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and resource use particularly in children with heart disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据