To evaluate the feasibility and cost savings of hospital discharge three days after acute myocardial infarction, we screened 507 consecutive patients prospectively for clinical complications and exercise-test performance. Of 179 patients whose condition was classified as uncomplicated (no angina, heart failure, or arrhythmia 72 hours after admission), 126 underwent early exercise testing and 90 had no provocable myocardial ischemia. Eighty of these patients were randomly assigned to early (day 3) or conventional (days 7 to 10) hospital discharge. Seventy-six of them had received coronary reperfusion therapy (thrombolysis, angioplasty, or both). At six months of follow-up, there were no deaths or new ventricular aneurysms, and the early-discharge and conventional-discharge groups had similar numbers of hospital readmissions (6 and 10), reinfarctions (none and 5), and patients with angina (3 and 8). In the early-discharge group, 25 of 29 previously employed patients returned to work 40.7 +/- 21.9 days (mean +/- SD) after admission, as compared with 25 of 27 patients in the conventional-discharge group, who returned to work after a mean of 56.9 +/- 30.3 days (P = 0.054). The mean cumulative hospital and professional charges were $12,546 +/- 3,034 in the early-discharge group, as compared with $17,868 +/- 3,688 in the conventional-discharge group (P less than 0.0001). In carefully selected patients with uncomplicated myocardial infarction, hospital discharge after three days is feasible and leads to a substantial reduction in hospital charges. Before this strategy can be widely recommended, however, its safety must be confirmed in larger prospective clinical trials.

Patients with LEAD have a significantly higher risk of death than patients without LEAD, regardless of the presence of symptoms. An abnormal ankle/arm index is a strong predictor of mortality and can be used to further stratify risk among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

To determine the relative economic impact of alternative methods of coronary revascularization, in-hospital patient accounts were reviewed in 149 patients undergoing elective coronary angioplasty (n = 50), coronary atherectomy (n = 72) or intracoronary stent placement (n = 27) over an 18-month period. Clinical and angiographic features were similar in the 3 groups, except that prior restenosis was seen more often in patients undergoing intracoronary stent placement. Procedural success, obtained in greater than 90% of patients, was independent of the treatment strategy. Total in-hospital stay was significantly longer in patients undergoing intracoronary stent placement than in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty and directional atherectomy (4.9 +/- 2.4 days vs 1.5 +/- 1.3 and 2.2 +/- 3.9 days, respectively; p less than 0.0001). Furthermore, the total in-hospital charges were significantly higher in patients undergoing intracoronary stent placement ($12,574 +/- $4,564 vs $6,220 +/- $5,716; p less than 0.001) and directional atherectomy ($8,329 +/- $8,588 vs $6,220 +/- $5,716; p less than 0.01) than in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, reflecting overall differences in room costs, laboratory fees and pharmacy fees. The longer in-hospital stay in the intracoronary stent group was primarily attributed to the time required for anticoagulation with coumadin. It is concluded that a 102 and 34% increase in early hospital charges resulted with stenting or directional atherectomy, respectively, compared with coronary angioplasty. These increased in-hospital charges were chiefly due to the prolonged hospitalization time, device cost, laboratory fees and, in patients with intracoronary stents, the prolonged time needed to achieve systemic anticoagulation.

No abstract

Background This paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an “as-needed” basis. Methods STRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant’s underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant’s primary care provider. STRIDE’s primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be “serious” (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant’s self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed. Discussion Adjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02475850 ). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40621-019-0190-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.