MP5-05 UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 30— AND 90—DAY EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS AND READMISSIONS FOLLOWING RADICAL CYSTECTOMY

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Evidence-based Medicine & Outcomes I1 Apr 2015MP5-05 UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 30— AND 90—DAY EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS AND READMISSIONS FOLLOWING RADICAL CYSTECTOMY E. Sophie Spencer, Peter Greene, Matthew Lyons, Anne Marie Meyer, Ke Meng, Raj Pruthi, Eric Wallen, Michael Woods, Matthew Nielsen, and Angela Smith E. Sophie SpencerE. Sophie Spencer More articles by this author , Peter GreenePeter Greene More articles by this author , Matthew LyonsMatthew Lyons More articles by this author , Anne Marie MeyerAnne Marie Meyer More articles by this author , Ke MengKe Meng More articles by this author , Raj PruthiRaj Pruthi More articles by this author , Eric WallenEric Wallen More articles by this author , Michael WoodsMichael Woods More articles by this author , Matthew NielsenMatthew Nielsen More articles by this author , and Angela SmithAngela Smith More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.232AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Readmissions are particularly common following radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer, with several institutional case series demonstrating rates approximating 24%. Our objective was to determine the frequency of ER visits and readmissions within 30 and 90 days following RC for bladder cancer and establish the relationship between emergency room (ER) visits and readmissions at both time points using a state-wide multipayer database. METHODS Using a linked data resource combining NC Central Cancer Registry with administrative claims data from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans, we included adult patients diagnosed with bladder cancer from 2003–2010 who received RC within 1 year after diagnosis. We identified readmissions and ER visits 30 and 31–90 days after discharge. Comparisons between 30 and 90-day readmissions and ER visits were performed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS 842 patients were identified as receiving RC within 1 year of diagnosis. Mean age was 69 years, with 72% male. Approximately 19% (n=161) presented to the ER within 30 days, and 18% (n=152) presented to the ER within 31–90 days (total n=313). Of those who presented to the ER within 30 and 31–90 days, 63% and 74% were subsequently readmitted, respectively. Only 26% of the patients presenting to the ER were observed at both time points (see table). 30- and 90-day overall readmissions were also evaluated with 22% (n=189) readmitted within 30 days, and 21% (n=178) within 31–90 days. Approximately 30% of those readmitted within 30 days were also readmitted at 31–90 days. Finally, we evaluated those readmitted through the ER, with 12% (n=103) and 14% (n=115) readmitted within 30 days and 31–90 days after discharge, respectively. One quarter of patients readmitted through the ER within 30 days were also readmitted through the ER between 31–90 days. CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, these results represent the first evaluation of both 30- and 90-day readmissions following RC for BC in a population-based sample. An equal proportion of readmissions occur within 30 and 31–90 days following RC for bladder cancer with anywhere from one quarter to one third being readmitted at both time points. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e46-e47 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information E. Sophie Spencer More articles by this author Peter Greene More articles by this author Matthew Lyons More articles by this author Anne Marie Meyer More articles by this author Ke Meng More articles by this author Raj Pruthi More articles by this author Eric Wallen More articles by this author Michael Woods More articles by this author Matthew Nielsen More articles by this author Angela Smith More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...