↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Causes and predictors of hospital readmissions in patients older than 65 years hospitalized for heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in western Romania

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Causes and predictors of hospital readmissions in patients older than 65 years hospitalized for heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in western Romania
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s83750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adelina Marioara Mavrea, Tiberiu Dragomir, Diana Aurora Bordejevic, Mirela Cleopatra Tomescu, Oana Ancusa, Iosif Marincu

Abstract

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more frequent in the elderly and is associated with important economic implications because of repetitive and prolonged hospitalizations, due to both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. To identify the causes, as well as the clinical and biological markers, that could be used as predictors of hospital readmissions in HFpEF patients aged ≥65 years. Consecutive eligible patients hospitalized for a first heart failure (HF) episode were prospectively included and divided into one of two age groups (elderly: ≥65 years; and nonelderly: <65 years). The clinical features, therapeutic approaches, and clinical outcomes during the 1-year follow-up period were analyzed. A total of 178 patients were included, with a mean age of 64.6±8.6 years; 80 (45%) were women. A total of 98 patients (55%) were aged ≥65 years, and 80 (45%) were aged <65 years. In the group aged ≥65 years, 58 patients (59%) were women, while in the group aged <65 years, 22 patients (28%) were women (P=0.0001). During the 1-year follow-up, no patients died or were lost to follow-up. Moreover, 116 (65%) of the HFpEF patients experienced hospital readmissions. The elderly patients had a significantly higher readmission rate (73% vs 55%, respectively; P<0.02); readmissions due to aggravated HF were significantly more frequent in this age group (41% vs 18%, respectively; P<0.002). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the independent predictors of readmission due to HF aggravation included plasma levels of brain natriuretic peptide >450 pg/mL (P<0.01) and N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide >477 pg/mL (P<0.02) in the elderly group, while in the nonelderly group, the independent predictors of this outcome were a New York Heart Association functional class of IV at initial hospitalization (P<0.04), as well as plasma levels of brain natriuretic peptide >390 pg/mL (P=0.03) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α >7.1 pg/mL (P<0.001). Readmissions due to noncardiovascular causes were independently predicted by plasma levels of TNF-α >10 pg/mL in the elderly (P=0.003) and of interleukin (IL)-6 >1.9 pg/mL in the nonelderly (P<0.04). We conclude that in HFpEF patients aged ≥65 years, the main cause of rehospitalization during the 1-year follow-up was HF aggravation. The risk of this outcome was independently predicted by increased levels of cardiac peptides, while the risk of noncardiovascular readmissions was predicted by increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers. Increased TNF-α levels predicted both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular readmissions, while increased levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein did not predict any of these outcomes in our study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,109
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,472
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#20
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.