ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is common in the elderly and is associated with high rates of hospitalisation, readmission and mortality. International guidelines however are not frequently implemented in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the clinical profile, investigations, treatment on discharge, length of hospital stay, readmission rate and mortality in 261 patients, aged ≥75â years, with a discharge diagnosis of heart failure. Clinical frailty was estimated using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale. RESULTS: Hypertension (64%), atrial fibrillation (50.6%) and ischaemic heart disease (46%) were common, and 75.6% of patients were clinically vulnerable or frail. 23.5% of admitters had an inpatient echocardiogram and 20% of patients had at least one readmission episode for heart failure. On discharge, 64.6% of admissions were treated with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist, 49.3% with a ß blocker and 28.7% with an aldosterone receptor antagonist (ARA). Patients discharged from cardiology wards were more likely to receive a ß blocker (p<0.05) versus care of elderly (COE) wards and readmitters were more likely to receive an ARA (p<0.05) versus patients with a single admission. In total, 34 inpatient deaths were recorded (13%) and 80 deaths (30.7%) were recorded long-term (median follow-up 337â days). Long-term mortality was significantly lower in single admitters versus readmitters (p<0.0001) and in those managed on cardiology wards versus COE wards (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients hospitalised on geriatric wards, those admitted to cardiology units were discharged more frequently with recommended medications and had a lower long-term mortality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is increasingly used in the UK to deliver thrombolysis. It is primarily used to enable assessment of people presenting with an acute stroke by a remote specialist in stroke care, and to determine eligibility for thrombolysis with alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator). This study aims to evaluate the process of acute stroke care, safety and outcome profiles when comparing face-to-face evaluation and telemedicine in the delivery of thrombolysis. METHODS: This was a retrospective single centre cohort study, evaluating patients thrombolysed from July 2007 to December 2009 inclusive. All patients were given treatment within a 3-hour window from onset of symptoms. Of the 97 patients thrombolysed, 45 (46%) were evaluated by telemedicine. Process times of the steps taken to deliver thrombolysis for the two groups were compared. The authors include the rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH). Outcome data include 3-month mortality and functional status. RESULTS: Process times were significantly better in face-to-face: Admission to CT (p=0.001), CT to treatment (p≤0.001) and admission to treatment (p≤0.001). SICH occurred in four patients (7.7%) in the face-to-face group compared with the two patients (4.4%) in the telemedicine group (p=0.7). Favourable outcome: a modified Rankin score of 0-2 was observed in 19 patients (36.5%) in the face-to-face group compared with 19 patients (42%) in the telemedicine group (p=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the use of telemedicine compared with face-to-face evaluation is feasible in the delivery of thrombolysis during out of hours. There are several areas of our emergency process of hyper-acute stroke care that need improving when using telemedicine.
