Back

Attendance-related healthcare resource utilisation and costs in patients with long QT syndrome in Hong Kong: A retrospective cohort study

Chung, C. T.; Chou, O. H. I.; Lee, T. T. L.; Radford, D.; Jeevaratnam, K.; Wong, W. T.; Cheng, S. H.; Mok, N. S.; Liu, T.; Tse, G.

2022-11-14 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2022.11.12.22282256 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThe understanding of healthcare resource utilisation and its related costs is crucial for optimizing resource allocation in the healthcare setting. There is currently a paucity of published studies investigating healthcare costs related to long QT syndrome (LQTS). MethodThis was a retrospective study of LQTS patients from Hong Kong, China. The healthcare resource utilisation for Accident and Emergency (A&E), inpatient and specialist outpatient settings across a 19-year period was extracted and analysed. Costs in US dollars were calculated using unit costs. ResultsThe cohort consists of 125 LQTS patients with a mean presentation age of 26.7 {+/-} 22.0 years old. Of these, 45 patients presented with ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) and 44 patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implementation. At the individual patient level, the median annualised costs were $69 (30-183) at the A&E setting, $10270 (2248-64006) at the inpatient setting and $675 (393-1329) at the special outpatient setting. Patients who presented with VT/VF initially had significantly higher annualised median costs in the inpatient ($59843 [13812-214930] vs. $5480 [1162-23111], p<0.0001) and specialist outpatient setting ($823 [539-1694] vs $609 [383-1269], p=0.133) compared to patients without VT/VF initially. ConclusionThere is an increasing healthcare demand in the inpatient and specialist outpatient settings for LQTS patients. The most expensive attendance type was inpatient setting stay at $10270 per year. The total median annualised cost of LQTS patients without VT/VF was 90% lower compared to patients with VT/VF.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.