Impact of collaborative care on survival time for dogs with congestive heart failure and revenue for attending primary care veterinarians

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 3-4
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiuyuan Shao ◽  
Yangyang Xia ◽  
Min Zhao ◽  
Jing Liu ◽  
Qingyan Zhang ◽  
...  

Aims. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in treating refractory congestive heart failure (RCHF) with cardiorenal syndrome (CRS).Methods. A total of 36 patients with RCHF were divided into type 2 CRS group (group A) and non-type 2 CRS group (group B) according to the patients’ clinical presentations and the ratio of serum urea to creatinine and urinary analyses in this prospective study. All patients were followed up till death or discontinuation of PD. Data were collected for analysis, including patient survival time on PD, technique failure, changes of heart function, and complications associated with PD treatment and hospitalization.Results. There were 27 deaths and 9 patients quitting PD program after a follow-up for 73 months with an average PD time of22.8±18.2months. A significant longer PD time was found in group B as compared with that in group A (29.0±19.4versus13.1±10.6months,p=0.003). Kaplan–Meier curves showed a higher survival probability in group B than that in group A (p<0.001). Multivariate regression demonstrated that type 2 CRS was an independent risk factor for short survival time on PD. The benefit of PD on the improvement of survival and LVEF was limited to group B patients, but absent from group A patients. The impairment of exercise tolerance indicated by NYHA classification was markedly improved by PD for both groups. The technique survival was high, and the hospital readmission was evidently decreased for both group A and group B patients.Conclusions. Our data suggest that PD is a safe and feasible palliative treatment for RCHF with type 2 CRS, though the long-term survival could not be expected for patients with the type 2 CRS. Registration ID Number isChiCTR1800015910.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 678-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.V. Pierce ◽  
J.E. Rush ◽  
L.M. Freeman ◽  
S.M. Cunningham ◽  
V.K. Yang

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
Manisha Chandar ◽  
Bruce Brockstein ◽  
Alan Zunamon ◽  
Irwin Silverman ◽  
Sarah Dlouhy ◽  
...  

12 Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) discussions afford patients and physicians a chance to better understand patients’ values and wishes regarding end-of-life care; however these conversations typically take place late in the course of a disease, or not at all. The goal of this study was to understand attitudes of oncologists, cardiologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) towards ACP. We also aimed to identify persistent barriers to timely ACP discussion following a quality improvement initiative at our health system aimed at improving ACP completion rate. Methods: A 23-question cross-sectional online survey was created and distributed to cardiologists, oncologists, primary care physicians and cardiology and oncology support staff at the NorthShore University Health System (NorthShore) from February-March 2015. A total of 117 individuals (46% of distributed) completed the surveys. The results were compiled using an online survey analysis tool. Results: Only 15% of cardiologists felt it was their responsibility to conduct ACP with their congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. In contrast, 68% of oncologists accepted responsibility for ACP in incurable cancer patients. Sixty-eight percent of PCPs felt personally responsible for conducting ACP discussions with CHF patients, while only 34% felt the same about cancer patients. Documentation of ACP in the electronic health record (EHR) was inconsistent among specialties. Among all surveyed specialties, lack of time was the major barrier limiting ACP discussion. Perceived patient discomfort and discomfort of the patient’s family towards these discussions were also significant reported barriers. Conclusions: Attitudes toward ACP implementation vary considerably by medical specialty and medical condition, with oncologists in this study feeling more personal responsibility for carrying out these discussions with cancer patients than cardiologists with their heart failure patients. Robust implementation of ACP across the spectrum of medical illnesses is likely to require a true collaboration between office-based PCPs and specialists in both the inpatient and ambulatory settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document