Disparities in colonoscopy utilization for lower gastrointestinal bleeding in rural vs urban settings in the United States.

Abstract

BACKGROUNDLower gastrointestinal bleeds (LGIB) is a very common inpatient condition in the United States. Gastrointestinal bleeds have a variety of presentations, from minor bleeding to severe hemorrhage and shock. Although previous studies investigated the efficacy of colonoscopy in hospitalized patients with LGIB, there is limited research that discusses disparities in colonoscopy utilization in patients with LGIB in urban and rural settings. AIMTo investigate the difference in utilization of colonoscopy in lower gastrointestinal bleeding between patients hospitalized in urban and rural hospitals. METHODSThis is a retrospective cohort study of 157748 patients using National Inpatient Sample data and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. It includes patients 18 years and older hospitalized with LGIB admitted between 2010 and 2016. This study does not differentiate between acute and chronic LGIB and both are included in this study. The primary outcome measure of this study was the utilization of colonoscopy among patients in rural and urban hospitals admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeds; the secondary outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs involved in those receiving colonoscopy for LGIB. Statistical analyses were all performed using STATA software. Logistic regression was used to analyze the utilization of colonoscopy and mortality, and a generalized linear model was used to analyze the length of stay and cost. RESULTSOur study found that 37.9% of LGIB patients at rural hospitals compared to approximately 45.1% at urban hospitals received colonoscopy, (OR = 0.730, 95%CI: 0.705-0.7, P > 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, colonoscopies were found to have a protective association with lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.498, 95%CI: 0.446-0.557, P < 0.0001), but a longer length of stay by 0.72 d (95%CI: 0.677-0.759 d, P < 0.0001) and approximately $2199 in increased costs. CONCLUSIONAlthough there was a lower percentage of LGIB patients that received colonoscopies in rural hospitals compared to urban hospitals, patients in both urban and rural hospitals with LGIB undergoing colonoscopy had decreased in-hospital mortality. In both settings, benefit came at a cost of extended stay, and higher total costs.