Dataset Information

Severe vision impairment and blindness in hospitalized patients: a retrospective nationwide study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Outcomes among hospitalized patients with severe vision impairment or blindness have not been extensively explored. This study sought to determine clinical and resource utilization outcomes in patients with severe vision impairment/blindness (SVI/B). Because obesity is very common among those who are hospitalized, we also sought to understand its impact among patients with SVI/B.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample for the year 2017; hospitalized adults with and without SVI/B were compared. In addition, for all patients with SVI/B, we compared those with and without obesity. Multiple logistic regression and linear analysis were used to evaluate mortality, disposition, length of stay, and hospital charges; the analyses were adjusted for multiple variables including age, sex, and race.

Results

30,420,907 adults were hospitalized, of whom 37,200 had SVI/B. Patients with SVI/B were older (mean age ± SEM: 66.4 ± 0.24 vs. 57.9 ± 0.09 years, p < 0.01), less likely to be female (50 % vs. 57.7 %, p < 0.01), more frequently insured by Medicare (75.7 % vs. 49.2 %, p < 0.01), and had more comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 3: 53.2 % vs. 27.8 %, p < 0.01). Patients with SVI/B had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (3.9 % vs. 2.2 %; p < 0.01), and had lower odds to be discharged home after hospital discharge (adjusted Odds Ratio {aOR} =0.54, [Confidence Interval (CI) 0.51-0.58]; p < 0.01) compared to those without SVI/B. Hospital charges were not significantly different (adjusted Mean Difference {aMD} = $247 CI [-$2,474-2,929]; p = 0.85) but length of stay was longer (aMD = 0.5 days CI [0.3-0.7]; p < 0.01) for those with SVI/B. Patients with vision impariment who were also obese had higher total hospital charges compared to those without obesity (mean difference: $9,821 [CI $1,375-$18,268]; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Patients admitted to American hospitals in 2017 who had SVI/B had worse clinical outcomes and greater resources utilization than those without SVI/B. Hospital-based healthcare providers who understand that those with SVI/B may be at risk for worse outcomes may be optimally positioned to help them to receive the best possible care.

SUBMITTER: Harris CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8220710 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of accessible, good quality eye health services and inclusive environments, vision loss can impact individuals, households and communities in many ways, including through increased poverty, reduced quality of life and reduced employment. We aimed to estimate the annual potential productivity losses associated with reduced employment due to blindness and moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI) at a regional and global level.MethodsWe constructed a model using the most recent economic, demographic (2018) and prevalence (2020) data. Calculations were limited to the working age population (15-64 years) and presented in 2018 US Dollars purchasing power parity (ppp). Two separate models, using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI), were calculated to maximise comparability with previous estimates.FindingsWe found that 160.7 million people with MSVI or blindness were within the working age and estimated that the overall relative reduction in employment by people with vision loss was 30.2%. Globally, using GDP we estimated that the annual cost of potential productivity losses of MSVI and blindness was $410.7 billion ppp (range $322.1 - $518.7 billion), or 0.3% of GDP. Using GNI, overall productivity losses were estimated at $408.5 billion ppp (range $320.4 - $515.9 billion), 0.5% lower than estimates using GDP.InterpretationThese findings support the view that blindness and MSVI are associated with a large economic impact worldwide. Reducing and preventing vision loss and developing and implementing strategies to help visually impaired people to find and keep employment may result in significant productivity gains.FundingMJB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). JR's appointment at the University of Auckland is funded by the Buchanan Charitable Foundation, New Zealand. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health was supported by grants from The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity (GR001061), NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, The Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The SEVA Foundation, The British Council for the Prevention of Blindness and Christian Blind Mission. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, data analysis of the study, or writing of the manuscript.

Project description:PurposeTo support survey validation efforts by comparing prevalence rates of self-reported and examination evaluated presenting visual impairment (VI) and blindness measured across national surveys.DesignCross-sectional comparison.ParticipantsParticipants in the 2016 American Community Survey, the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health.MethodsWe estimated VI and blindness prevalence rates and confidence intervals for each survey measure and age group using the Clopper-Pearson method. We used inverse variance weighting to estimate the central tendency across measures by age-group, fitted trend lines to age-group estimates, and used the trend-line equations to estimate the number of United States persons with VI and blindness in 2016. We compared self-report estimates with those from NHANES physical evaluations of presenting VI and blindness.Main outcome measuresVariability of prevalence estimates of VI and blindness.ResultsSelf-report estimates of blindness varied between 0.1% and 5.6% for those younger than 65 years and from 0.6% to 16.6% for those 65 or older. Estimates of VI varied between 1.6% and 24.8% for those younger than 65 years and between 2.2% and 26.6% for those 65 years or older. For summarized survey results and NHANES physical evaluation, prevalence rates for VI increased significantly with increasing age group. Blindness prevalence increased significantly with increasing age group for summarized survey responses but not for NHANES physical examination. Based on extrapolations of NHANES physical examination data to all ages, we estimated that in 2016, 23.4 million persons in the United States (7.2%) had VI or blindness, an evaluated presenting visual acuity of 20/40 or worse in the better-seeing eye before correction. Based on weighted self-reported surveys, we estimated that 24.8 million persons (7.7%) had presenting VI or blindness.ConclusionsPrevalence rates of VI and blindness obtained from national survey measures varied widely across surveys and age groups. Additional research is needed to validate the ability of survey self-report measures of VI and blindness to replicate results obtained through examination by an eye health professional.

Project description:There have been relatively few attempts to represent vision or blindness ontologically. This is unsurprising as the related phenomena of sight and blindness are difficult to represent ontologically for a variety of reasons. Blindness has escaped ontological capture at least in part because: blindness or the employment of the term 'blindness' seems to vary from context to context, blindness can present in a myriad of types and degrees, and there is no precedent for representing complex phenomena such as blindness.We explore current attempts to represent vision or blindness, and show how these attempts fail at representing subtypes of blindness (viz., color blindness, flash blindness, and inattentional blindness). We examine the results found through a review of current attempts and identify where they have failed.By analyzing our test cases of different types of blindness along with the strengths and weaknesses of previous attempts, we have identified the general features of blindness and vision. We propose an ontological solution to represent vision and blindness, which capitalizes on resources afforded to one who utilizes the Basic Formal Ontology as an upper-level ontology.The solution we propose here involves specifying the trigger conditions of a disposition as well as the processes that realize that disposition. Once these are specified we can characterize vision as a function that is realized by certain (in this case) biological processes under a range of triggering conditions. When the range of conditions under which the processes can be realized are reduced beyond a certain threshold, we are able to say that blindness is present. We characterize vision as a function that is realized as a seeing process and blindness as a reduction in the conditions under which the sight function is realized. This solution is desirable because it leverages current features of a major upper-level ontology, accurately captures the phenomenon of blindness, and can be implemented in many domain-specific ontologies.

Project description:BackgroundMany causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older.FindingsGlobal crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change -0·2% [95% UI -1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by -15·4% [-16·8 to -14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [-0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7-18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8-4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8-2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3-2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59-1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2-101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2-91·4]).InterpretationResults suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached.FundingBrien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg.

Project description:TopicWe provide global estimates of the prevalence of corneal blindness and vision impairment in adults 40 years of age and older and examine the burden by age, sex, and geographic region from 1984 through 2020.Clinical relevanceCorneal opacities (COs) are among the top 5 causes of blindness worldwide, yet the global prevalence, regional differences, and risk factors are unclear.MethodsAbstracted data from the published literature and surveys were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Vision Loss Expert Group. We supplemented this by an independent systematic literature search of several databases. Studies that provided CO vision impairment data based on population-based surveys for those 40 years of age or older were included, for a total of 244. For each of the 4 outcomes of blindness and moderate to severe vision impairment (MSVI) caused by trachomatous and nontrachomatous CO (NTCO), time trends and differences in prevalence by region, age, and sex were evaluated using a Poisson log-linear model with a generalized estimating equation method. Age-standardized estimates of global prevalence of blindness and MSVI were calculated using the 2015 United Nations standard populations.ResultsThe global prevalence of blindness resulting from NTCO in those 40 years and older was 0.081% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049%-0.315%); that of MSVI was 0.130% (95% CI, 0.087%-0.372%). A significant increase with age was found (prevalence rate ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.99-2.32). Latin America and Europe showed the lowest rates, with 2- to 8-fold higher rates of blindness or MSVI in other regions. The global prevalence of blindness resulting from trachomatous CO in those 50 years and older was 0.0094% (95% CI, 0%-0.0693%); that from MSVI was 0.012% (95% CI, 0%-0.0761%). Blindness resulting from trachomatous CO and MSVI increased with age and female sex, and rates were significantly higher in the African regions. A decrease in trachomatous blindness rates over time was found (prevalence rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96).DiscussionAn estimated 5.5 million people worldwide are bilaterally blind or have MSVI resulting from CO, with an additional 6.2 million unilaterally blind. Blindness resulting from trachomatous CO is declining over time, likely because of the massive scaleup of the global trachoma elimination program and overall socioeconomic development.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.