Bernard R Schockaert, René M van Bruchem, Maarten F Engel, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier, Sanne E Hoeks
{"title":"非心脏手术延长术后康复单位住院的结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Bernard R Schockaert, René M van Bruchem, Maarten F Engel, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier, Sanne E Hoeks","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgery carries inherent risks, with the postoperative phase being as critical as the intraoperative period. Enhanced perioperative care units, positioned between general wards and intensive care units, aim to provide adequate postoperative management and resource allocation. Despite their widespread implementation, evidence on outcomes remains limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality following extended postoperative recovery, with subgroup meta-analysis examining enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units. Secondary outcomes included, among others, hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review with meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception up to 22 April 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>The search string encompassed extended postoperative recovery units, including enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units, for noncardiac, nontransplant surgery, excluding speciality-specific, age-specific, indirect and nonsurgical admissions. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, eligibility assessment and quality appraisal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 28 179 records screened, 24 were included of which 22 were unique studies. The overall pooled random-effects mortality, based on 15 studies, was 3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 6)%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a mortality of 2 (95% CI 1 to 4)% for patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units and 8 (95% CI 4 to 14)% in intensive care units ( χ2 = 7.99; P < 0.01). Risk of bias (ROBINS I) was moderate to serious, and heterogeneity substantial. Pooled hospital length of stay, based on six studies, was 8.6 (95% CI 5.9 to 11.3) days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pooled mortality following extended postoperative recovery in noncardiac surgery was 3% (95% CI 2 to 6). Subgroup analysis indicated lower mortality among patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units. However, considerable heterogeneity in operational definitions, unit capabilities, and admission criteria necessitates cautious interpretation while reflecting real-world practices. Delineation through further research is warranted.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration: </strong>CRD42023457051.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"407-418"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes following extended postoperative recovery unit admission in noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bernard R Schockaert, René M van Bruchem, Maarten F Engel, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier, Sanne E Hoeks\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgery carries inherent risks, with the postoperative phase being as critical as the intraoperative period. Enhanced perioperative care units, positioned between general wards and intensive care units, aim to provide adequate postoperative management and resource allocation. Despite their widespread implementation, evidence on outcomes remains limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality following extended postoperative recovery, with subgroup meta-analysis examining enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units. Secondary outcomes included, among others, hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review with meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception up to 22 April 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>The search string encompassed extended postoperative recovery units, including enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units, for noncardiac, nontransplant surgery, excluding speciality-specific, age-specific, indirect and nonsurgical admissions. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, eligibility assessment and quality appraisal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 28 179 records screened, 24 were included of which 22 were unique studies. The overall pooled random-effects mortality, based on 15 studies, was 3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 6)%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a mortality of 2 (95% CI 1 to 4)% for patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units and 8 (95% CI 4 to 14)% in intensive care units ( χ2 = 7.99; P < 0.01). Risk of bias (ROBINS I) was moderate to serious, and heterogeneity substantial. Pooled hospital length of stay, based on six studies, was 8.6 (95% CI 5.9 to 11.3) days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pooled mortality following extended postoperative recovery in noncardiac surgery was 3% (95% CI 2 to 6). Subgroup analysis indicated lower mortality among patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units. However, considerable heterogeneity in operational definitions, unit capabilities, and admission criteria necessitates cautious interpretation while reflecting real-world practices. Delineation through further research is warranted.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration: </strong>CRD42023457051.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"407-418\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970609/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002145\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:手术具有固有的风险,术后阶段与术中阶段一样重要。强化围手术期护理病房位于普通病房和重症监护病房之间,旨在提供充分的术后管理和资源分配。尽管它们得到了广泛实施,但关于结果的证据仍然有限。目的:主要结局是术后延长恢复后30天或住院死亡率,亚组荟萃分析检查了围手术期护理单位和重症监护单位。次要结果包括住院时间等。设计:采用荟萃分析的系统评价。数据来源:在MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central和谷歌Scholar中进行了全面的检索,从成立到2024年4月22日。入选标准:搜索字符串包括非心脏、非移植手术的术后恢复单位,包括围手术期强化护理单位和重症监护单位,不包括专科、年龄、间接和非手术入院。两名评审员独立进行筛选、资格评估和质量评估。结果:在筛选的28179份记录中,包括24份,其中22份是独特的研究。基于15项研究的总随机效应合并死亡率为3%(95%置信区间(CI) 2 ~ 6)%。亚组分析显示,在强化围手术期护理病房治疗的患者死亡率为2% (95% CI 1 ~ 4)%,在重症监护病房治疗的患者死亡率为8% (95% CI 4 ~ 14)% (χ2 = 7.99;结论:非心脏手术术后长期恢复后的总死亡率为3% (95% CI 2 ~ 6)%。亚组分析表明,在强化围手术期护理病房管理的患者死亡率较低。然而,在操作定义、单位能力和准入标准方面的相当大的异质性需要谨慎的解释,同时反映出遗漏?现实世界的实践。有必要通过进一步的研究来描述。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD42023457051。
Outcomes following extended postoperative recovery unit admission in noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Surgery carries inherent risks, with the postoperative phase being as critical as the intraoperative period. Enhanced perioperative care units, positioned between general wards and intensive care units, aim to provide adequate postoperative management and resource allocation. Despite their widespread implementation, evidence on outcomes remains limited.
Objectives: The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality following extended postoperative recovery, with subgroup meta-analysis examining enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units. Secondary outcomes included, among others, hospital length of stay.
Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Data sources: A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception up to 22 April 2024.
Eligibility criteria: The search string encompassed extended postoperative recovery units, including enhanced perioperative care units and intensive care units, for noncardiac, nontransplant surgery, excluding speciality-specific, age-specific, indirect and nonsurgical admissions. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, eligibility assessment and quality appraisal.
Results: Of 28 179 records screened, 24 were included of which 22 were unique studies. The overall pooled random-effects mortality, based on 15 studies, was 3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 6)%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a mortality of 2 (95% CI 1 to 4)% for patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units and 8 (95% CI 4 to 14)% in intensive care units ( χ2 = 7.99; P < 0.01). Risk of bias (ROBINS I) was moderate to serious, and heterogeneity substantial. Pooled hospital length of stay, based on six studies, was 8.6 (95% CI 5.9 to 11.3) days.
Conclusion: Pooled mortality following extended postoperative recovery in noncardiac surgery was 3% (95% CI 2 to 6). Subgroup analysis indicated lower mortality among patients managed in enhanced perioperative care units. However, considerable heterogeneity in operational definitions, unit capabilities, and admission criteria necessitates cautious interpretation while reflecting real-world practices. Delineation through further research is warranted.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).