Dataset Information

Predictive models for identifying risk of readmission after index hospitalization for hip arthroplasty: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An aging United States population profoundly impacts healthcare from both a medical and financial standpoint, especially with an increase in related procedures such as Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Program incentivize hospitals to decrease post-operative readmissions by correlating reimbursements with smoother care transitions, thereby decreasing hospital burden and improving quantifiable patient outcomes. Many studies have proposed predictive models built upon risk factors for predicting 30-day THA readmissions.

Questions

(1) Are there validated statistical models that predict 30-day readmissions for THA patients when appraised with a standards-based, reliable assessment tool?. (2) Which evidence-based factors are significant and have support across models for predicting risk of 30-day readmissions post-THA?

Methods

Five major electronic databases were searched to identify studies that examined correlations between post-THA readmission and risk factors using multivariate models. We rigorously applied the PRISMA methodology and TRIPOD criteria for assessment of the prognostic studies.

Results

We found 26 studies that offered predictive models, of which two presented models tested with validation cohorts. In addition to the many factors grouped into demographic, administrative, and clinical categories, bleeding disorder, higher ASA status, discharge disposition, and functional status appeared to have broad and significant support across the studies.

Conclusions

Reporting of recent predictive models establishing risk factors for 30-day THA readmissions against the current standard could be improved. Aside from building better performing models, more work is needed to follow the thorough process of undergoing calibration, external validation, and integration with existing EHR systems for pursuing their use in clinical settings. There are several risk factors that are significant in multiple models; these factors should be closely examined clinically and leveraged in future risk modeling efforts.

SUBMITTER: Mahajan SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7139132 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS:The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS:Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.