Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith SA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5770102 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The surgical workforce, like the rest of the population, is ageing. This has raised concerns about the association between the age of the surgeon and their surgical outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on postoperative mortality and major morbidity according to the surgeons' age. The search was performed on February 2021 using the Embase, Medline and CENTRAL databases. Postoperative mortality and major morbidity were evaluated as clinical outcomes. We categorized the surgeons' age into young-, middle-, and old-aged surgeons. We compared the differences in clinical outcomes for younger and older surgeons compared to middle-aged surgeons. Subgroup analyses were performed for major and minor surgery. Ten retrospective cohort studies on 29 various surgeries with 1,666,108 patients were considered. The mortality in patients undergoing surgery by old-aged surgeons was 1.14 (1.02-1.28, p = 0.02) (I2 = 80%) compared to those by middle-aged surgeon. No significant differences were observed according to the surgeon's age in the major morbidity and subgroup analyses. This meta-analysis indicated that surgeries performed by old-aged surgeons had a higher risk of postoperative mortality than those by middle-aged surgeons. Thus, it necessitates the introduction of a multidisciplinary approach to evaluate the performance of senior surgeons.
| S-EPMC9252995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic puts perioperative providers and staff at risk of viral exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) during aerosol-generating procedures, particularly in asymptomatic carriers.However, the perioperative risk for adverse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients remain uncertain and the topic of debate. The current study was designed to determine the postoperative mortality in COVID-19 patients based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global published peer-reviewed literature.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline; Science direct and LILACS from December 29, 2019, to August15, 2020, without language restriction. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of mortality were included while case reports and reviews were excluded. The data from each study were extracted with two independent authors with a customized format excel sheet and the disagreements were resolved by the third author. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using a standardized critical appraisal Tool adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsA total of 715 articles were identified from different databases and 45 articles were selected for evaluation after the successive screening. Twenty-three articles with 2947 participants were included. The meta-analysis revealed a very high global rate of postoperative mortality among COVID-19 patients of 20% (95% CI: 15 to 26) and a postoperative ICU admission rate of 15% (95% confidence interval (CI):10 to 21).ConclusionThe unexpected high postoperative mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of 20% in the global literature mandates further scrutiny in assuring appropriate surgical indications and perioperative surgical safety measures in this vulnerable cohort of patients.RegistrationThis systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in Prospero's international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020203362) on August 10, 2020.
| S-EPMC7549731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGreen spaces have been proposed to be a health determinant, improving health and wellbeing through different mechanisms. We aimed to systematically review the epidemiological evidence from longitudinal studies that have investigated green spaces and their association with all-cause mortality. We aimed to evaluate this evidence with a meta-analysis, to determine exposure-response functions for future quantitative health impact assessments.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on green spaces and all-cause mortality. We searched for studies published and indexed in MEDLINE before Aug 20, 2019, which we complemented with an additional search of cited literature. We included studies if their design was longitudinal; the exposure of interest was measured green space; the endpoint of interest was all-cause mortality; they provided a risk estimate (ie, a hazard ratio [HR]) and the corresponding 95% CI for the association between green space exposure and all-cause mortality; and they used normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) as their green space exposure definition. Two investigators (DR-R and DP-L) independently screened the full-text articles for inclusion. We used a random-effects model to obtain pooled HRs. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018090315.FindingsWe identified 9298 studies in MEDLINE and 13 studies that were reported in the literature but not indexed in MEDLINE, of which 9234 (99%) studies were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts and 68 (88%) of 77 remaining studies were excluded after assessment of the full texts. We included nine (12%) studies in our quantitative evaluation, which comprised 8 324 652 individuals from seven countries. Seven (78%) of the nine studies found a significant inverse relationship between an increase in surrounding greenness per 0·1 NDVI in a buffer zone of 500 m or less and the risk of all-cause mortality, but two studies found no association. The pooled HR for all-cause mortality per increment of 0·1 NDVI within a buffer of 500 m or less of a participant's residence was 0·96 (95% CI 0·94-0·97; I2, 95%).InterpretationWe found evidence of an inverse association between surrounding greenness and all-cause mortality. Interventions to increase and manage green spaces should therefore be considered as a strategic public health intervention.FundingWorld Health Organization.
| S-EPMC6873641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although small bowel resection is generally considered a low risk gastrointestinal procedure, this might not be true for small bowel neuroendocrine neoplasms (SB-NEN) as a result of potential central mesenteric involvement. We aimed to determine the reported morbidity and mortality after resection of SB-NEN in the literature and assess the effect of hospital volume on postoperative morbidity and mortality. A systematic review was performed by searching MEDLINE and Embase in March 2021. All studies reporting morbidity and/or mortality after SB-NEN resection were included. Pooled proportions of overall morbidity (Clavien-Dindo I-IV), severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were calculated, as well as the association with hospital volume (high volume defined as the fourth quartile). Thirteen studies were included, with a total of 1087 patients. Pooled proportions revealed an overall morbidity of 13% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7%-24%, I2 = 90%), severe morbidity of 7% (95% CI = 4%-14%, I2 = 70%), 30-day mortality of 2% (95% CI = 1%-3%, I2 = 0%), 90-day mortality of2% (95% CI = 2%-4%, I2 = 35%) and in-hospital mortality of 1% (95% CI = 0%-2%, I2 = 0%). An annual hospital volume of nine or more resections was associated with lower overall and severe morbidity compared to lower volume: 10% vs 15% and 4% vs 9%, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was similar (2% vs 1%) and 90-day mortality was higher in high-volume hospitals: 4% vs 1%. This systematic review with meta-analyses showed severe morbidity of 7% and low mortality rates after resection of SB-NEN. The currently available literature suggests a certain impact of hospital volume on postoperative outcomes, although heterogeneity among the included studies constrains interpretation.
| S-EPMC8459236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is widely accepted that higher mortality related to weekend admissions basically exists; however, there has been no systematic exploration of whether weekend admissions are associated with higher risk of death in patients on the basis of certain diagnoses, geographic regions, and study subtypes.A meta-analysis was performed according to the reporting guidelines of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE Compliant). Literature search was conducted using electronic databases. Primary outcome was short-term (≤30-day) mortality. Patients were divided into 7 regions (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa, and Antarctica) for subgroup analyses and into 7 categories evaluating 24 major diagnoses. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models.Eighty-eight studies including 56,934,649 participants met our inclusion criteria. Overall pooled adjusted and crude OR of weekend to weekday admission for short-term mortality was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.07-1.18; I = 97%) and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.14-1.19; I = 97%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, higher risk of death on the weekend was significantly identified in patients living in all five continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania). However, significant weekend effect was identified only in 15 of 24 diagnostic groups. Patients admitted on the weekend were more likely to die in an emergency situation (crude OR = 1.17, 95% CI, 1.12-1.22).Although weekend admissions were associated with higher risk of death compared with weekday admissions on all five continents, the effect was limited to certain diagnostic groups and admission subtypes. Weekend effect remains highly heterogeneous and limited, suggesting that further well-conducted cohort studies might be informative.
| S-EPMC5413234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe elderly population is highly susceptible to develop post-operative complications after major surgeries. It is not clear whether the comprehensive geriatric care models are effective in reducing adverse events. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether the comprehensive geriatric care models improved clinical outcomes, particularly in decreasing the prevalence of delirium and length of hospital stay (LOS) in elderly surgical patients.MethodWe searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Emcare Nursing, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials. Gov, and ICTRP between 2009 to January 23, 2020. We included studies on geriatric care models in elderly patients (≥60 years) undergoing elective, non-cardiac high-risk surgery. The outcomes were the prevalence of delirium, LOS, rates of 30-days readmission, and 30-days mortality. We used the Cochrane Review Manager Version 5.3. to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) using random effect model analysis.ResultsEleven studies were included with 2672 patients [Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): 4; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials (Non-RCTs): 7]. Data pooled from six studies showed that there was no significant difference in the prevalence of delirium between the intervention and control groups: 13.8% vs 15.9% (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.30-1.96; p = 0.57). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the LOS (MD: -0.55; 95% CI: - 2.28, 1.18; p = 0.53), 30-day readmission (12.1% vs. 14.3%; OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.67-1.77; p = 0.73), and 30-day mortality (3.2% vs. 2.1%; OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.66-2.69; p = 0.42). The quality of evidence was very low.ConclusionsThe geriatric care models involved pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment, and intervention tools to address cognition, frailty, and functional status. In non-cardiac high-risk surgeries, these care models did not show any significant difference in the prevalence of delirium, LOS, 30-days readmission rates, and 30-day mortality in geriatric patients. Further RCTs are warranted to evaluate these models on the postoperative outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number - CRD42020181779 .
| S-EPMC8061210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To determine the effectiveness and safety of interventions used for rehabilitation after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using both randomized trials and cohort studies. The effect of mobilization, weight-bearing, and unprotected weight-bearing as tolerated on postoperative recovery was compared using the Olerud Molander score, return to work/daily activities, and the rate of complications. RESULTS:A total of 25 articles were included. Ankle exercises resulted in earlier return to work and/or daily activities compared to immobilization (mean difference (MD) -20.76 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -40.02 to -1.50). There was no difference in the rate of complications between exercises and immobilization (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.60 to 2.45) or between early and late weight-bearing (RR 1.26; 95%CI 0.56 to 2.85). INTERPRETATION:Results of this meta-analysis show that following ankle surgery, 1) active exercises accelerate return to work and daily activities compared to immobilization, 2) early weight-bearing tends to accelerate return to work and daily activities compared to late weight-bearing. Active exercises in combination with immediate weight-bearing may be a safe option.
| S-EPMC4335061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and to characterise trends in risk of mortality after initiation and cessation of treatment.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and LILACS to September 2016.Study selection Prospective or retrospective cohort studies in people with opioid dependence that reported deaths from all causes or overdose during follow-up periods in and out of opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Mortality rates in and out of treatment were jointly combined across methadone or buprenorphine cohorts by using multivariate random effects meta-analysis.Results There were 19 eligible cohorts, following 122 885 people treated with methadone over 1.3-13.9 years and 15 831 people treated with buprenorphine over 1.1-4.5 years. Pooled all cause mortality rates were 11.3 and 36.1 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 3.86) and reduced to 4.3 and 9.5 in and out of buprenorphine treatment (2.20, 1.34 to 3.61). In pooled trend analysis, all cause mortality dropped sharply over the first four weeks of methadone treatment and decreased gradually two weeks after leaving treatment. All cause mortality remained stable during induction and remaining time on buprenorphine treatment. Overdose mortality evolved similarly, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 2.6 and 12.7 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 4.80, 2.90 to 7.96) and 1.4 and 4.6 in and out of buprenorphine treatment.Conclusions Retention in methadone and buprenorphine treatment is associated with substantial reductions in the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people dependent on opioids. The induction phase onto methadone treatment and the time immediately after leaving treatment with both drugs are periods of particularly increased mortality risk, which should be dealt with by both public health and clinical strategies to mitigate such risk. These findings are potentially important, but further research must be conducted to properly account for potential confounding and selection bias in comparisons of mortality risk between opioid substitution treatments, as well as throughout periods in and out of each treatment.
| S-EPMC5421454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The concept of a weekend effect, poorer outcomes for patients admitted to hospitals at the weekend is not new, but is the focus of debate in England. Many studies have been published which consider outcomes for patients on admitted at the weekend. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of weekend admission on mortality in UK hospitals. METHODS:This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on the weekend effect in UK hospitals. We used EMBASE, MEDLINE, HMIC, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus to search for relevant papers. We included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and observational studies) on patients admitted to hospital in the UK and published after 2001. Our outcome was death; studies reporting mortality were included. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. Discrepancy in assessment was considered by a third reviewer. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects meta-regression to incorporate the heterogeneity into the weighting. RESULTS:Forty five articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. 53% of the articles concluded that outcomes for patients either undergoing surgery or admitted at the weekend were worse. We included 39 in the meta-analysis which contributed 50 separate analyses. We found an overall effect of 1.07 [odds ratio (OR)] (95%CI:1.03-1.12), suggesting that patients admitted at the weekend had higher odds of mortality than those admitted during the week. Sub-group analyses suggest that the weekend effect remained when measures of case mix severity were included in the models (OR:1.06 95%CI:1.02-1.10), but that the weekend effect was not significant when clinical registry data was used (OR:1.03 95%CI: 0.98-1.09). Heterogeneity was high, which may affect generalisability. CONCLUSIONS:Despite high levels of heterogeneity, we found evidence of a weekend effect in the UK, even after accounting for severity of disease. Further work is required to examine other potential explanations for the "weekend effect" such as staffing levels and other organisational factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews -registration number: CRD42016041225 .
| S-EPMC6245775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDiabetes appears to increase risk for some cancers, but the association between preexisting diabetes and postoperative mortality in cancer patients is less clear. Our objective was to systematically review postoperative mortality in cancer patients with and without preexisting diabetes and summarize results using meta-analysis. RSEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) for articles published on or before 1 July 2009, including references of qualifying articles. We included English language investigations of short-term postoperative mortality after initial cancer treatment. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least two independent readers. Study population and design, results, and quality components were abstracted with standard protocols by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by additional reviewers.ResultsOf 8,828 titles identified in our original search, 20 articles met inclusion criteria for qualitative systematic review. Of these, 15 reported sufficient information to be combined in meta-analysis. Preexisting diabetes was associated with increased odds of postoperative mortality across all cancer types (OR = 1.85 [95% CI 1.40-2.45]). The risk associated with preexisting diabetes was attenuated but remained significant when we restricted the meta-analysis to models that controlled for confounders (1.51 [1.13-2.02]) or when we accounted for publication bias using the trim and fill method (1.52 [1.13-2.04]).ConclusionsCompared with their nondiabetic counterparts, cancer patients with preexisting diabetes are approximately 50% more likely to die after surgery. Future research should investigate physiologic pathways to mortality risk and determine whether improvements in perioperative diabetes care can reduce postoperative mortality.
| S-EPMC2845055 | biostudies-literature