Dataset Information

The effect of telemedicine in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Telemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes.

Methods

We searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I² (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance).

Results

Of 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I2 = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I² = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I² = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I2 = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I2 > 90% for both).

Conclusions

Telemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.

SUBMITTER: Wilcox ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3580710 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of telemedicine in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wilcox M Elizabeth ME Adhikari Neill K J NK

Critical care (London, England) 20120718 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Telemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedi ...[more]

PMID: 22809335

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is currently unclear whether parenteral selenium supplementation should be recommended in the management of critically ill patients. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of parenteral selenium supplementation on clinical outcomes.Methods/principal findingsRandomized trials investigating parenteral selenium supplementation administered in addition to standard of care to critically ill patients were included. CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, and CINAHL were searched with complementary manual searches. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Trials published in any language were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. A third author was consulted to resolve disagreements and for quality assurance. Twelve trials were included and meta-analysis was performed on nine trials that recruited critically ill septic patients. These comprised 965 participants in total. Of these, 148 patients (30.7%) in the treatment groups, and 180 patients (37.3%) in control groups died. Parenteral selenium treatment significantly reduced all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the administration schedule employing longer duration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%), loading boluses (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%) or high-dose selenium treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%) might be associated with a lower mortality risk. There was no evidence of adverse events.Conclusions/significanceParenteral selenium supplementation reduces risk of mortality among critically ill patients with sepsis. Owing to the varied methodological quality of the studies, future high-quality randomized trials that directly focus on the effect of adequate-duration of parenteral selenium supplementation for severe septic patients are needed to confirm our results. Clinicians should consider these findings when treating this high-risk population.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2011; CRD42011001768.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients with diabetes are at increased risk for the development of complications, but the impact of diabetes on mortality is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of diabetes on mortality in critically ill patients, making a distinction between different ICU types. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase for studies published from May 2005 to May 2010 that reported the mortality of adult ICU patients. Two reviewers independently screened the resultant 3,220 publications for information regarding ICU, in-hospital or 30-day mortality of patients with or without diabetes. The number of deaths among patients with or without diabetes and/or mortality risk associated with diabetes was extracted. When only crude survival data were provided, odds ratios (ORs) and standard errors were calculated. Data were synthesized using inverse variance with ORs as the effect measure. A random effects model was used because of anticipated heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 141 studies comprising 12,489,574 patients, including 2,705,624 deaths (21.7%). Of these patients, at least 2,327,178 (18.6%) had diabetes. Overall, no association between the presence of diabetes and mortality risk was found. Analysis by ICU type revealed a significant disadvantage for patients with diabetes for all mortality definitions when admitted to the surgical ICU (ICU mortality: OR [95% confidence interval] 1.48 [1.04 to 2.11]; in-hospital mortality: 1.59 [1.28 to 1.97]; 30-day mortality: 1.62 [1.13 to 2.34]). In medical and mixed ICUs, no effect of diabetes on all outcomes was found. Sensitivity analysis showed that the disadvantage in the diabetic surgical population was attributable to cardiac surgery patients (1.77 [1.45 to 2.16], P < 0.00001) and not to general surgery patients (1.21 [0.96 to 1.53], P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that diabetes is not associated with increased mortality risk in any ICU population except cardiac surgery patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:Vitamin C is a water-soluble antioxidant vitamin. Oxidative stress and its markers, along with inflammatory markers, are high during critical illness. Due to conflicting results of the published literature regarding the efficacy of vitamin C in critically ill patients, and especially the concerns for nephrotoxicity raised by some case reports, this meta-analysis was carried out to appraise the evidence and affirmation regarding the role of vitamin C in critically ill patients. We searched the database thoroughly to collect relevant studies that assessed intravenous vitamin C use in critically ill patients published until 25 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies with 20 or more critically ill patients who have received intravenous ascorbic acid (vitamin C). After screening 18,312 studies from different databases, 53 were included in our narrative synthesis, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis. We used the Covidence software for screening of the retrieved literature. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 was used for the pooling of data and Odds Ratios (OR) and Mean difference (MD) as measures of effects with a 95% confidence interval to assess for explanatory variables. Pooling data from 33 studies for overall hospital mortality outcomes using a random-effect model showed a 19% reduction in odds of mortality among the vitamin C group (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality at 28/30 days, ICU mortality, new-onset AKI and Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) for AKI did not differ significantly across the two groups. Analysis of data from 30 studies reporting ICU stay disclosed 0.76 fewer ICU days in the vitamin C group than the placebo/standard of care (SOC) group (95% CI, -1.34 to -0.19). This significance for shortening ICU stay persisted even when considering RCTs only in the analysis (MD, -0.70; 95% CI, -1.39 to -0.02). Treatment of critically ill patients with intravenous vitamin C was relatively safe with no significant difference in adverse renal events and decreased in-hospital mortality. The use of vitamin C showed a significant reduction in the length of ICU stays in critically ill patients.

Project description:IntroductionGlutamine (GLN) has been suggested to have a beneficial influence on outcomes of critically ill patients. However, recent large-scale trials have suggested harm associated with GLN supplementation. Recently, systematic reviews on the use of parenteral GLN have been published; however, less information is available on the role of enteral GLN. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to study the effects of enteral GLN supplementation in patients with critical illness.MethodsWe identified randomized controlled trials conducted from 1980 to 2014 with enterally administered GLN in adult critically ill patients. Studies of parenteral GLN only or combined enteral-parenteral GLN were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was scored, and trial data were statistically combined. We examined a priori the treatment effects in subgroups of trials of burn and trauma patients.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 1079 adult critically ill patients and enteral GLN supplementation were identified. Enteral GLN supplementation was not associated with a reduction of hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.36; p = 0.74), infectious complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.10; p = 0.39) or stay in the intensive care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.36 days, 95% CI -5.51 to 2.78; p = 0.52). However, there was a significant reduction in hospital stay (WMD 4.73 days, 95% CI -8.53 to -0.90; p = 0.02). In the subset of studies of patients with burns, enteral GLN supplementation was associated with significant reductions in hospital mortality (RR 0.19, 95% 0.06-0.67; p = 0.010) and hospital stay (WMD -9.16, 95% CI -15.06 to -3.26; p = 0.002). There was no effect in trauma patients.ConclusionsEnteral GLN supplementation does not confer significant clinical benefit in critically ill patients, with the exception of reduced hospital stay. There may be a significant benefit in patients with burns, but data are sparse and larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm this effect.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesCENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresMortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.ConclusionAntithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.

Dataset Information

The effect of telemedicine in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effect of telemedicine in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets