Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37424958›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2023

Clinical and Economic Burden Associated with Disruptive Surgical Bleeding: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

Stephen S Johnston, Mosadoluwa Afolabi, Pranjal Tewari, Walter Danker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Establishment and Validation of a Predictive Model for Gallstone Disease in the General Population: A Multicenter Study].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024
    Article
  5. Accuracy of HAS-BLED and BleedMAP Scores in Predicting Postoperative Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients Undergoing non-Cardiac Surgery.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen S JohnstonMedTech Epidemiology and Real-World Data Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Mosadoluwa AfolabiMedTech Epidemiology and Real-World Data Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Pranjal TewariMu Sigma, Bangalore, India.
Walter DankerFranchise Health Economics and Market Access, Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9741-5821
Johnson & Johnson (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hemostatic agents are used to control surgical bleeding; however, some patients experience disruptive bleeding despite the use of hemostats. In patients receiving hemostats, we compared clinical and economic outcomes between patients with vs without disruptive bleeding during a variety of surgical procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database. Study patients were age ≥18 with a hospital encounter for one of 9 procedures with evidence of hemostatic agent use between 1-Jan-2019 and 31-Dec-2019: cholecystectomy, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), cystectomy, hepatectomy, hysterectomy, pancreatectomy, peripheral vascular, thoracic, and valve procedures (first procedure = index). Patients were grouped by presence vs absence of disruptive bleeding. Outcomes evaluated during index included intensive care unit (ICU) admission/duration, ventilator use, operating room time, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and total hospital costs; 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission was also evaluated. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the association of disruptive bleeding with outcomes, adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital/provider characteristics. Results: The study included 51,448 patients; 16% had disruptive bleeding (range 1.5% for cholecystectomy to 44.4% for valve). In procedures for which ICU and ventilator use is not routine, disruptive bleeding was associated with significant increases in the risks of admission to ICU and requirement for ventilator (all p≤0.05). Across all procedures, disruptive bleeding was also associated with significant incremental increases in days spent in ICU (all p≤0.05, except CABG), LOS (all p≤0.05, except thoracic), and total hospital costs (all p≤0.05); 90-day all-cause inpatient readmission, in-hospital mortality, and operating room time were higher in the presence of disruptive bleeding and varied in statistical significance across procedures. Conclusion: Disruptive bleeding was associated with substantial clinical and economic burden across a wide variety of surgical procedures. Findings emphasize the need for more effective and timely intervention for surgical bleeding events.

Indexed as

burden of bleedinghealth resource utilizationhemostatic agenthospital costsreal-world evidenceRWE

Identifiers

PMID37424958
PMCPMC10327677
OpenAlexW4382981635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.