Effect of Tele-ICU on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: The TELESCOPE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Q1 Medicine
Adriano J Pereira, Danilo T Noritomi, Maura Cristina Dos Santos, Thiago D Corrêa, Leonardo J R Ferraz, Guilherme P P Schettino, Eduardo Cordioli, Renata A Morbeck, Lúbia C Morais, Jorge I F Salluh, Luciano C P Azevedo, Rodrigo S Biondi, Regis G Rosa, Alexandre B Cavalcanti, Otavio Berwanger, Ary Serpa Neto, Otavio T Ranzani
{"title":"Effect of Tele-ICU on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: The TELESCOPE Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Adriano J Pereira, Danilo T Noritomi, Maura Cristina Dos Santos, Thiago D Corrêa, Leonardo J R Ferraz, Guilherme P P Schettino, Eduardo Cordioli, Renata A Morbeck, Lúbia C Morais, Jorge I F Salluh, Luciano C P Azevedo, Rodrigo S Biondi, Regis G Rosa, Alexandre B Cavalcanti, Otavio Berwanger, Ary Serpa Neto, Otavio T Ranzani","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.20651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Despite its implementation in several countries, there has not been a randomized clinical trial to assess whether telemedicine in intensive care units (ICUs) could improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether an intervention comprising daily multidisciplinary rounds and monthly audit and feedback meetings performed by a remote board-certified intensivist reduces ICU length of stay (LOS) compared with usual care.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>A parallel cluster randomized clinical trial with a baseline period in 30 general ICUs in Brazil in which daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by board-certified intensivists were not routinely available. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to the participating ICUs, excluding those admitted due to justice-related issues, were enrolled between June 1, 2019, and April 7, 2021, with last follow-up on July 6, 2021.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Remote daily multidisciplinary rounds led by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine, monthly audit and feedback meetings for discussion of ICU performance indicators, and provision of evidence-based clinical protocols.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was ICU LOS at the patient level. Secondary outcomes included ICU efficiency, in-hospital mortality, incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated events, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation, and rate of patients with oxygen saturation values under that of normoxemia, assessed using generalized linear mixed models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 17 024 patients (1794 in the baseline period and 15 230 in the intervention period), the mean (SD) age was 61 (18) years, 44.7% were female, the median (IQR) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 6 (2-9), and 45.5% were invasively mechanically ventilated at admission. The median (IQR) time under intervention was 20 (16-21) months. Mean (SD) ICU LOS, adjusted for baseline assessment, did not differ significantly between the tele-critical care and usual care groups (8.1 [10.0] and 7.1 [9.0] days; percentage change, 8.2% [95% CI, -5.4% to 23.8%]; P = .24). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses and prespecified subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any other secondary or exploratory outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine did not reduce ICU LOS in critically ill adult patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03920501.</p>","PeriodicalId":17196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"1798-1807"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11581649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.20651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Despite its implementation in several countries, there has not been a randomized clinical trial to assess whether telemedicine in intensive care units (ICUs) could improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.

Objective: To determine whether an intervention comprising daily multidisciplinary rounds and monthly audit and feedback meetings performed by a remote board-certified intensivist reduces ICU length of stay (LOS) compared with usual care.

Design, setting, and participants: A parallel cluster randomized clinical trial with a baseline period in 30 general ICUs in Brazil in which daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by board-certified intensivists were not routinely available. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to the participating ICUs, excluding those admitted due to justice-related issues, were enrolled between June 1, 2019, and April 7, 2021, with last follow-up on July 6, 2021.

Intervention: Remote daily multidisciplinary rounds led by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine, monthly audit and feedback meetings for discussion of ICU performance indicators, and provision of evidence-based clinical protocols.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was ICU LOS at the patient level. Secondary outcomes included ICU efficiency, in-hospital mortality, incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated events, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation, and rate of patients with oxygen saturation values under that of normoxemia, assessed using generalized linear mixed models.

Results: Among 17 024 patients (1794 in the baseline period and 15 230 in the intervention period), the mean (SD) age was 61 (18) years, 44.7% were female, the median (IQR) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 6 (2-9), and 45.5% were invasively mechanically ventilated at admission. The median (IQR) time under intervention was 20 (16-21) months. Mean (SD) ICU LOS, adjusted for baseline assessment, did not differ significantly between the tele-critical care and usual care groups (8.1 [10.0] and 7.1 [9.0] days; percentage change, 8.2% [95% CI, -5.4% to 23.8%]; P = .24). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses and prespecified subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any other secondary or exploratory outcomes.

Conclusions and relevance: Daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine did not reduce ICU LOS in critically ill adult patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03920501.

远程重症监护室对重症患者临床疗效的影响:TELESCOPE 随机临床试验。
重要性:尽管远程医疗已在多个国家实施,但还没有一项随机临床试验来评估重症监护病房(ICU)中的远程医疗是否能改善重症患者的临床疗效:目的:确定与常规护理相比,由远程认证的重症医学专家进行每日多学科查房和每月审计与反馈会议的干预措施是否能缩短重症监护室的住院时间(LOS):这是一项平行分组随机临床试验,基线期为巴西的 30 个普通重症监护病房,这些病房中没有由委员会认证的重症监护专家进行的日常多学科查房。在2019年6月1日至2021年4月7日期间,参与试验的重症监护病房连续收治的所有成年患者(年龄≥18岁)均被纳入试验,其中不包括因司法相关问题入院的患者,最后一次随访时间为2021年7月6日:干预措施:通过远程医疗,由一名经委员会认证的重症医学专家领导每日多学科远程查房,每月召开审计和反馈会议,讨论重症监护室的绩效指标,并提供循证临床方案:主要结果和衡量标准:主要结果是重症监护室患者的住院时间。次要结果包括重症监护室效率、院内死亡率、中心管路相关血流感染发生率、呼吸机相关事件、导管相关尿路感染、28 天无呼吸机天数、接受口服或肠内喂养的患者天数、轻度镇静的患者天数以及血氧饱和度值低于正常血氧饱和度值的患者比例,采用广义线性混合模型进行评估:在 17 024 名患者中(基线期 1794 名,干预期 15 230 名),平均(标清)年龄为 61(18)岁,44.7% 为女性,序贯器官衰竭评估评分的中位数(IQR)为 6(2-9)分,45.5% 的患者在入院时接受了有创机械通气。干预时间的中位数(IQR)为 20(16-21)个月。经基线评估调整后,远程重症监护组和常规护理组的平均 ICU LOS(标清)无显著差异(8.1 [10.0] 天和 7.1 [9.0] 天;百分比变化为 8.2% [95% CI, -5.4% to 23.8%]; P = .24)。敏感性分析和预设亚组的结果相似。其他次要或探索性结果无统计学差异:由经委员会认证的重症医学专家通过远程医疗进行的每日多学科查房并未减少重症成人患者的 ICU LOS:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03920501。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
45.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA, published continuously since 1883, is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信