Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Discharge to healthcare facilities increased 6-month readmission risk in Chinese heart failure patients compared to home dischargeDischarge to healthcare facilities linked to higher heart failure readmission risk

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that discharge to healthcare facilities is associated with higher readmission risk compared to home discharge in this cohort.

This retrospective cohort study evaluated 836 Chinese patients with heart failure treated at the Fourth People's Hospital of Zigong City, China. The primary exposure was discharge destination, comparing discharge to healthcare facilities versus discharge to home. The primary outcome was readmission within 6 months, with secondary outcomes assessed at 3 months and 28 days.

Discharge to healthcare facilities was independently associated with a higher readmission risk compared with discharge to home. For the primary outcome of readmission within 6 months, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.06–1.50, P = 0.009). At 3 months, the hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.02–1.55, P = 0.034), and at 28 days, it was 1.53 (95% CI 1.04–2.26, P = 0.032).

Safety data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability, were not reported. As an observational study, these findings suggest an association rather than causation. The practice relevance indicates that discharge destination should be considered as a potential indicator of readmission risk in clinical practice.

This study looked at 836 Chinese patients with heart failure treated at a hospital in Zigong City. Researchers compared what happened to patients sent to healthcare facilities versus those discharged to their homes. The main goal was to see if where patients went after leaving the hospital affected their chance of being readmitted within six months.

The findings showed that patients discharged to healthcare facilities had a higher risk of readmission compared to those going home. This increased risk was seen at three months and 28 days as well. The data suggests that the destination chosen for discharge might be an important sign of future readmission risk.

Because this was a retrospective study looking at past records, the results show a link but do not prove that sending patients to facilities caused the higher risk. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand exactly why this difference occurred. Clinicians should consider discharge destination when assessing readmission risk.

What this means for you:
Discharge to healthcare facilities linked to higher readmission risk in Chinese heart failure patients.

Study Details

Study typeCohort
EvidenceLevel 3
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundThe high readmission rate among heart failure (HF) patients is a significant concern, but limited research has explored the relationship between discharge destination and readmission rates in Chinese HF patients.ObjectiveTo examine the association between discharge destination and readmission in HF patients.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2,008 HF patients admitted to the Fourth People's Hospital of Zigong City, China, between December 2016 and June 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on their discharge destination: home and healthcare facility. The primary outcome was readmission within 6 months, with secondary outcomes at 3 months and 28 days. Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan–Meier curves were used to assess the relationship, with additional subgroup and interaction analyses for robustness.ResultsA total of 836 patients with HF were enrolled in this study. Among them, 638 patients were discharged to home, while 198 patients were discharged to healthcare facilities. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model revealed that discharge to healthcare facilities were independently associated with a higher readmission risk compared with discharge to home, adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.50, P = 0.009 for readmission within 6 months. Similar trends were observed for readmission within 3 months (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02–1.55, P = 0.034) and 28 days (HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.04–2.26, P = 0.032). Kaplan–Meier analysis (log-rank test P = 0.011) supported the above findings, and the association remained robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that discharge to a healthcare facility was independently associated with an increased readmission risk among HF patients. Discharge destination should be considered as a potential indicator of readmission risk in clinical practice.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.