RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparisons of healthcare resource utilisation and costs between Brugada syndrome and congenital long QT syndrome: a territory-wide study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.11.12.22282257
DO 10.1101/2022.11.12.22282257
A1 Lee, Sharen
A1 Chung, Cheuk To
A1 Radford, Danny
A1 Chou, Oscar Hou In
A1 Lee, Teddy Tai Loy
A1 Leung, Keith Sai Kit
A1 Roever, Leonardo
A1 Rajan, Rajesh
A1 Bazoukis, George
A1 Letsas, Konstantinos P
A1 Zeng, Shaoying
A1 Liu, Fang Zhou
A1 Wong, Wing Tak
A1 Liu, Tong
A1 Tse, Gary
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/14/2022.11.12.22282257.abstract
AB Introduction Healthcare resource utilisation and costs are important metrics of healthcare burden, but they have rarely been explored in the setting of cardiac ion channelopathies.Purpose The aim of this study is to compare HCRUs and costs between patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) and congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) in a single city of China.Methods This was a territory-wide retrospective cohort study of consecutive BrS and LQTS patients at public hospitals or clinics in Hong Kong, China. HCRUs and costs (in USD) for accident and emergency (A&E), inpatient, general outpatient and specialist outpatient attendances were analysed over a 19-year period (2001-2019) at the cohort level. Comparisons were made between BrS and LQTS cohorts using incidence rate ratios (IRRs [95% confidence intervals]).Results Over the 19-year study period, 516 BrS (median age of initial presentation: 51 [interquartile range: 38-61] years, 92% male) and 134 LQTS (median age of initial presentation: 21 [9-44] years, 32% male) patients were included. BrS patients had lower total costs compared to LQTS patients (2,008,126 [2,007,622-2,008,629] vs. 2,343,864 [2,342,828-2,344,900]; IRR: 0.857 [0.855-0.858]). For specific attendance types, BrS patients had higher costs for A&E attendances (83,113 [83,048-83,177] vs. 70,604 [70,487-70,721]; IRR: 1.177 [1.165-1.189]) and general outpatient services (2,176 [2,166-2,187] vs. 921 [908-935]; IRR: 2.363 [2.187-2.552]). However, they had lower costs for inpatient stay (1,391,624 [1,391,359-1,391,889] vs. 1,713,742 [1,713,166-1,714,319]; IRR: 0.812 [0.810-0.814]) and to a smaller extent, lower costs for specialist outpatient services (531213 [531049-531376] vs. 558597 [558268-558926]; IRR: 0.951 [0.947-0.9550]) compared to LQTS patients.Conclusion Overall, BrS patients consume 14% less healthcare resources compared to LQTS patients in terms of attendance costs. BrS patients require more A&E and general outpatient services, but less inpatient and specialist outpatient services than LQTS patients. Further studies are needed to examine patient-based attendances and costs to identify subgroups of high HCRU users for both cohorts.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by a Clinical Assistant Professorship at the Chinese University of Hong KongAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was part of a wider study on cardiac arrhythmias approved by The Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors