Routine anaesthesia ward-based patient visits in surgery: 1-year outcomes of the TRACE randomized clinical trial.

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Valérie M Smit-Fun, Dianne de Korte-de Boer, Thomas Damen, Annick Stolze, Linda M Posthuma, Markus W Hollmann, Wolfgang F F A Buhre
{"title":"Routine anaesthesia ward-based patient visits in surgery: 1-year outcomes of the TRACE randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Valérie M Smit-Fun, Dianne de Korte-de Boer, Thomas Damen, Annick Stolze, Linda M Posthuma, Markus W Hollmann, Wolfgang F F A Buhre","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Routine posTsuRgical Anaesthesia visit to improve patient outComE) RCT did not show any perioperative benefit from ward-based visits by anaesthetists after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this intervention on longer-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were followed up in the TRACE RCT to 1 year in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, and at risk for adverse postoperative outcome, were included. Patients in the intervention group additionally received routine anaesthesia visits on postoperative days 1 and 3. Clinical outcome measures included 1-year mortality, hospital readmission, and reoperation. Functional recovery (FR) was measured using the patient-reported global surgical recovery (GSR) index, ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), and functional recovery index (FRI). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using EQ-5D-5L.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Some 5473 adult patients were followed up. No differences were found between the control and intervention groups for clinical, FR, and QoL outcome measures. One-year mortality was 5.4% in the control group and 5.8% in the intervention group, readmission was 27% and 26% respectively, and reoperation was 20% and 18% respectively. At 1 year, FR and QoL had recovered to preoperative levels. However, 30% of patients were not able to fully perform ADL and 40%-51% of patients still reported a problem in the EQ-5D-5L dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine postoperative anaesthesia ward visits of patients did not improve clinical, functional, and QoL outcomes. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced health-related limitations in daily life 1 year after surgery. In conclusion, an early postoperative intervention with postoperative anaesthesia visits in the ward after non-cardiac surgery had no effect on 30-day or 1-year clinical outcome. Remarkably, TRACE shows that compared with data sampled 10 years ago, 1-year mortality has not improved in the Netherlands. At 1 year, functional recovery or QoL showed little improvement compared with baseline. Importantly, a substantial number of patients still reported incomplete recovery and problems that limit QoL, which indicate that there is still room for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"112 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11897594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The TRACE (Routine posTsuRgical Anaesthesia visit to improve patient outComE) RCT did not show any perioperative benefit from ward-based visits by anaesthetists after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this intervention on longer-term outcomes.

Methods: Patients were followed up in the TRACE RCT to 1 year in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, and at risk for adverse postoperative outcome, were included. Patients in the intervention group additionally received routine anaesthesia visits on postoperative days 1 and 3. Clinical outcome measures included 1-year mortality, hospital readmission, and reoperation. Functional recovery (FR) was measured using the patient-reported global surgical recovery (GSR) index, ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), and functional recovery index (FRI). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using EQ-5D-5L.

Results: Some 5473 adult patients were followed up. No differences were found between the control and intervention groups for clinical, FR, and QoL outcome measures. One-year mortality was 5.4% in the control group and 5.8% in the intervention group, readmission was 27% and 26% respectively, and reoperation was 20% and 18% respectively. At 1 year, FR and QoL had recovered to preoperative levels. However, 30% of patients were not able to fully perform ADL and 40%-51% of patients still reported a problem in the EQ-5D-5L dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.

Conclusion: Routine postoperative anaesthesia ward visits of patients did not improve clinical, functional, and QoL outcomes. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced health-related limitations in daily life 1 year after surgery. In conclusion, an early postoperative intervention with postoperative anaesthesia visits in the ward after non-cardiac surgery had no effect on 30-day or 1-year clinical outcome. Remarkably, TRACE shows that compared with data sampled 10 years ago, 1-year mortality has not improved in the Netherlands. At 1 year, functional recovery or QoL showed little improvement compared with baseline. Importantly, a substantial number of patients still reported incomplete recovery and problems that limit QoL, which indicate that there is still room for improvement.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1102
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology. While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.
×
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