Enhancing Quadruple Health Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Using Digital Home Monitoring.

Mahesh Nagappa, Yamini Subramani, Homer Yang, Natasha Wood, Jill Querney, Lee-Anne Fochesato, Derek Nguyen, Nida Fatima, Janet Martin, Ava John-Baptiste, Rahul Nayak, Mehdi Qiabi, Richard Inculet, Dalilah Fortin, Richard Malthaner
{"title":"Enhancing Quadruple Health Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Using Digital Home Monitoring.","authors":"Mahesh Nagappa, Yamini Subramani, Homer Yang, Natasha Wood, Jill Querney, Lee-Anne Fochesato, Derek Nguyen, Nida Fatima, Janet Martin, Ava John-Baptiste, Rahul Nayak, Mehdi Qiabi, Richard Inculet, Dalilah Fortin, Richard Malthaner","doi":"10.2196/58998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical recovery after hospital discharge often presents challenges for patients and caregivers. Postoperative complications and poorly managed pain at home can lead to unexpected visits to the emergency department (ED) and readmission to the hospital. Digital home monitoring (DHM) may improve postoperative care compared to standard methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess DHM's effectiveness following thoracic surgical procedures compared to standard care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a 2-arm parallel-group pilot RCT at a single tertiary care center. Adult patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups: the DHM group and the standard of care (control group). We adhered to the intention-to-treat analysis principle. The primary outcome was predetermined RCT feasibility criteria. The trial would be feasible if more than 75% of trial recruitment, protocol adherence, and data collection were achieved. Secondary outcomes included 30-day ED visit rates, 30-day readmission rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, postdischarge 30-day opioid consumption, 30-day quality of recovery, patient-program satisfaction, caregiver satisfaction, health care provider satisfaction, and cost per case.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All RCT feasibility criteria were met. The trial recruitment rate was 87.9% (95% CI 79.4%-93.8%). Protocol adherence and outcome data collection rates were 96.3% (95% CI 89.4%-99.2%) and 98.7% (95% CI 92.9%-99.9%), respectively. In total, 80 patients were randomized, with 40 (50%) in the DHM group and 40 (50%) in the control group. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. The DHM group had fewer unplanned ED visits (2.7% vs 20.5%; P=.02), fewer unplanned admission rates (0% vs 7.6%; P=.24), lower rates of postoperative complications (20% vs 47.5%, P=.01) shorter hospital stays (4.0 vs 6.9 days; P=.05), but more opioid consumption (111.6, SD 110.9) vs 74.3, SD 71.9 mg morphine equivalents; P=.08) compared to the control group. DHM also resulted in shorter ED visit times (130, SD 0 vs 1048, SD 1093 minutes; P=.48) and lower cost per case (CAD $12,145 [US $ 8436.34], SD CAD $8779 [US $ 6098.20] vs CAD $17,247 [US $11,980.37], SD CAD $15,313 [US $10,636.95]; P=.07). The quality of recovery scores was clinically significantly better than the controls (185.4, SD 2.6 vs 178.3, SD 3.3; P<.001). All 37 patients who completed the intervention answered the program satisfaction survey questionnaires (100%; 95% CI 90.5%-100%). Only 36 out of 80 caregivers responded to the caregiver satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the fourth week post hospital discharge (47.7%; 95% CI 35.7%-59.1%). Health care providers reported a 100% satisfaction rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot RCT demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial to assess DHM's efficacy in improving postoperative care following thoracic surgery. DHM shows promise for enhancing continuity of care and warrants further investigation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04340960.</p>","PeriodicalId":73557,"journal":{"name":"JMIR perioperative medicine","volume":"8 ","pages":"e58998"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR perioperative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical recovery after hospital discharge often presents challenges for patients and caregivers. Postoperative complications and poorly managed pain at home can lead to unexpected visits to the emergency department (ED) and readmission to the hospital. Digital home monitoring (DHM) may improve postoperative care compared to standard methods.

Objective: We conducted a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess DHM's effectiveness following thoracic surgical procedures compared to standard care.

Methods: We conducted a 2-arm parallel-group pilot RCT at a single tertiary care center. Adult patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups: the DHM group and the standard of care (control group). We adhered to the intention-to-treat analysis principle. The primary outcome was predetermined RCT feasibility criteria. The trial would be feasible if more than 75% of trial recruitment, protocol adherence, and data collection were achieved. Secondary outcomes included 30-day ED visit rates, 30-day readmission rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, postdischarge 30-day opioid consumption, 30-day quality of recovery, patient-program satisfaction, caregiver satisfaction, health care provider satisfaction, and cost per case.

Results: All RCT feasibility criteria were met. The trial recruitment rate was 87.9% (95% CI 79.4%-93.8%). Protocol adherence and outcome data collection rates were 96.3% (95% CI 89.4%-99.2%) and 98.7% (95% CI 92.9%-99.9%), respectively. In total, 80 patients were randomized, with 40 (50%) in the DHM group and 40 (50%) in the control group. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. The DHM group had fewer unplanned ED visits (2.7% vs 20.5%; P=.02), fewer unplanned admission rates (0% vs 7.6%; P=.24), lower rates of postoperative complications (20% vs 47.5%, P=.01) shorter hospital stays (4.0 vs 6.9 days; P=.05), but more opioid consumption (111.6, SD 110.9) vs 74.3, SD 71.9 mg morphine equivalents; P=.08) compared to the control group. DHM also resulted in shorter ED visit times (130, SD 0 vs 1048, SD 1093 minutes; P=.48) and lower cost per case (CAD $12,145 [US $ 8436.34], SD CAD $8779 [US $ 6098.20] vs CAD $17,247 [US $11,980.37], SD CAD $15,313 [US $10,636.95]; P=.07). The quality of recovery scores was clinically significantly better than the controls (185.4, SD 2.6 vs 178.3, SD 3.3; P<.001). All 37 patients who completed the intervention answered the program satisfaction survey questionnaires (100%; 95% CI 90.5%-100%). Only 36 out of 80 caregivers responded to the caregiver satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the fourth week post hospital discharge (47.7%; 95% CI 35.7%-59.1%). Health care providers reported a 100% satisfaction rate.

Conclusions: This pilot RCT demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial to assess DHM's efficacy in improving postoperative care following thoracic surgery. DHM shows promise for enhancing continuity of care and warrants further investigation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04340960.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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