4.3 Article

United States National Trends in Mortality, Length of Stay (LOS) and Associated Costs of Cognitive Impairment in HIV Population from 2005 to 2014

期刊

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 3198-3208

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-018-2128-z

关键词

HIV associated neurological disorders (HAND); Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (NIS); ICD-9 codes; Co-morbidity; Mortality; Morbidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated national trends of in-hospital discharge rates, mortality outcomes, health care costs, length of stay in HIV patients with cognitive disorders. Neurological involvement in HIV is commonly associated with cognitive impairment termed as HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) which includes a spectrum of neurocognitive dysfunction associated with HIV infection. Although severe and progressive neurocognitive impairment has become rare in HIV patients in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy, a majority of HIV patients have mild to moderate degree of neurocognitive impairment. Study population for this analysis was derived from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014. Patients with ICD-9 code of HIV (042) with discharge diagnosis (Dx) listed top 1 through 5 were included in the analysis. Within this population, we identified patients with cognitive impairment using ICD-9 codes of 294 (persistent mental disorders; organic psychotic brain syndromes (chronic), 323.9 (encephalitis, myelitis, and encephalomyelitis), 331.83 (mild cognitive impairment) with Dx listed from 1 to 25. Patient variables obtained included: age, race, gender, length of stay, in-hospital mortality and insurance status. Hospital level variables included teaching status, location and region of country. SAS 9.4 software was used for data analysis. Comparisons of variables between hospitalized HIV patients with and without HAND showed significant increase in cost per hospital admissions, longer hospital stay and higher risk of mortality in patients with HAND.

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

4.3
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