Abstracts by keywords: Mortality
Adipositas und ihre Folgeerkrankungen zählen weltweit zu den bedeutendsten Herausforderungen für die öffentliche Gesundheit. Mit der steigenden Verbreitung von Adipositas nehmen auch kardiometabolische Erkrankungen (z. B. Typ-2-Diabetes mellitus, arterielle Hypertonie, koronare Herzkrankheit und Herzinsuffizienz), bestimmte Tumorerkrankungen und Muskel-Skelett-Erkrankungen zu. Bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland zählt ein höherer Body-Mass-Index (BMI) zu den größten Risikofaktoren im Hinblick auf die […]
05.10.2026
Previous studies have reported increased in-hospital mortality in patients with dementia (PwD), but findings across age groups, clinical departments, and admission diagnoses have been limited. The aim of this study is to compare in-hospital mortality in PwD across age groups, clinical departments, and admission diagnoses with that of control subjects without dementia.
03.12.2024
The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). This multicenter cross-sectional study was based on data from HF patients from fourteen hospitals across Germany. A total of 19,288 inpatients (15,431 patients) were included (mean age: 79.4 years, 49.9% female). Mortality was 9.7%, increasing from 4.2% in the age group ≤65 years to 15.1% in the age group >90 years. Left heart failure with symptoms at rest, acute renal failure, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and pleural effusion were associated with an increased risk of death. Paradoxically, several chronic cardiovascular and metabolic diseases—including hypertensive heart disease, essential hypertension, pulmonary heart disease, obesity, dyslipidemia, and diabetes—were associated with a lower risk of death as secondary diagnoses. While our study provides a comprehensive snapshot of in-hospital mortality in HF patients, it also highlights the need for further studies to better understand the complex interplay of various risk factors.
03.06.2024
For many observers, our healthcare system is characterized by standstill. Good ideas would not be implemented, citizens and patients would be denied progress, and two-tier medicine would possibly be promoted. This is often attributed to over-regulation, bureaucratic obstacles and mutual blockade by interest groups. On the other hand, there are also those who point out that the range of services on offer is constantly growing, that this growth is not adequately controlled, and that this is essentially a result of uptake induced by the providers. Representatives of this position therefore prefer to discuss the aspect of limiting growth instead of the question of a backlog of innovation according to the motto: “How much more growth should we afford?” These “minus” and “plus” perspectives on the development of the Health care systems usually come face to face suddenly. However, it is noticeable that the position taken is often influenced by the role of the viewer in this system. Representatives of the minus or standstill thesis are primarily assigned to service providers or the healthcare industry, while representatives of the plus or growth thesis are usually assigned to payers and public health-oriented science. What is interesting is that both camps agree that the healthcare system functions irrationally and inefficiently, that it is risky and even sometimes hostile to patients.