3.9 Article

Predictors of Treatment Delay in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Patients

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1372438

关键词

treatment delay; timeliness; aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH); hospital volume; weekend effect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and PurposeExpeditious treatment is critical in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) due to the risk of rebleeding. This study aimed to define predictors of treatment delay among aSAH patients. MethodsA retrospective study of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database identified patients diagnosed with SAH between 2002 and 2007. Patient's characteristics such as age, gender, race, insurance, SAH severity, treatment (coil versus clip), and other factors were studied. The Cochrane-Armitage test was used to assess delayed care trends by procedure, time of treatment, and hospital volume. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with treatment delays. ResultsA total of 38,827 patients were admitted between 2002 and 2007; 69.0% were women and 61% were white. The overall median age was 52 years. More patients underwent treatment with surgical clipping than with endovascular coiling (60.4% versus 39.6%, respectively). Overall, 74% of hospital admissions occurred on weekdays; the remaining 26% occurred on weekends. Multivariate analysis revealed that older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.1; p=0.0004) and surgical clipping versus endovascular coiling (OR: 1.3; p=0.02) were independent predictors of delayed treatment (i.e., >2 days from admission). Nonwhite patients experienced greater treatment delays on weekdays compared with white patients (OR: 1.4; p=0.01). Furthermore, patients treated in low-volume hospitals were significantly more likely to experience delays than those treated in higher volume hospitals (OR: 2.0; p=0.007). ConclusionsRisk factors associated with treatment delay in aSAH patients include older age, nonwhite race, surgical clipping, and admission to low surgical volume hospitals.

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

3.9
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