4.6 Article

Home Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis According to Comorbid Conditions

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 129, 期 4, 页码 392-397

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.022

关键词

Deep venous thrombosis; Home treatment; Venous thromboembolism

资金

  1. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation [2154.11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cautious exploration of the safety of home treatment of deep venous thrombosis has been recommended by many. Our goal was to identify categories of patients with deep venous thrombosis who typically are hospitalized, and categories frequently treated at home. METHODS: The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2007-2012, were used to determine the number of patients seen in emergency departments throughout the US with deep venous thrombosis and no diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, the proportion of such patients hospitalized according to comorbid conditions and age, the proportion discharged early (<= 2 days), and charges for hospitalization and emergency department visits. RESULTS: From 2007-2012, home treatment was selected for 905,152 of 2,671,452 (33.9%)patients with deep venous thrombosis. Home treatment was more frequent in those with no comorbid conditions than with comorbid conditions, 58.0% compared with 15.5% (P <.0001). Early discharge (<= 2 days) was in 23.9% with no comorbid conditions, compared with 12.8% with comorbid conditions. Among patients aged 18-50 years, home treatment was selected in 62.9% with no comorbid conditions, compared with 24.2% with comorbid conditions (P <.0001). Among hospitalized patients with no comorbid conditions, 40.7% were aged 18-50 years. Their charges for hospitalization in 2012 were $494 million. CONCLUSION: Patients aged 50 years or younger with deep venous thrombosis and no comorbid conditions appear to be a group that can be targeted for more frequent home treatment, which would save millions of dollars. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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