4.6 Article

Obesity Increases Risk-Adjusted Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost Following Cardiac Surgery

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003831

关键词

complication; cost; obesity; surgery

资金

  1. Abbot Vascular
  2. Mitralign
  3. Edwards Lifesciences
  4. St. Jude Medical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Despite the epidemic rise in obesity, few studies have evaluated the effect of obesity on cost following cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with worse risk-adjusted outcomes and higher cost. Methods and Results-Medical records for 13 637 consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (9702), aortic (1535) or mitral (837) valve surgery, and combined valve-coronary artery bypass grafting (1663) procedures were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons certified database. Patients were stratified by BMI: normal to overweight (BMI 18.5-30), obese (BMI 30-40), and morbidly obese (BMI > 40). Differences in outcomes and cost were compared between BMI strata and also modeled as a continuous function of BMI with adjustment for preoperative risk using Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk indices. Morbidly obese patients incurred nearly 60% greater observed mortality than normal weight patients. Moreover, morbidly obese patients had greater than 2-fold increase in renal failure and 6.5-fold increase in deep sternal wound infection. After risk adjustment, a significant association was found between BMI and mortality (P<0.001) and major morbidity (P<0.001). The risk-adjusted odds ratio for mortality for morbidly obese patients was 1.57 (P=0.02) compared to normal patients. Importantly, risk-adjusted total hospital cost increased with BMI, with 17.2% higher costs in morbidly obese patients. Conclusions-Higher BMI is associated with increased mortality, major morbidity, and cost for hospital care. As such, BMI should be more strongly considered in risk assessment and resource allocation.

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

4.6
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