Dataset Information

Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:An association between weekend health care delivery and poor outcomes has become known as the "weekend effect." Evidence for such an association among surgery patients has not previously been synthesized. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review associations between weekend surgical care and postoperative mortality. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and references of relevant articles for studies that compared postoperative mortality either; (1) according to the day of the week of surgery for elective operations, or (2) according to weekend versus weekday admission for urgent/emergent operations. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for postoperative mortality (?90?d or inpatient mortality) were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS:Among 4027 citations identified, 10 elective surgery studies and 19 urgent/emergent surgery studies with a total of >6,685,970 and >1,424,316 patients, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. Pooled odds of mortality following elective surgery rose in a graded manner as the day of the week of surgery approached the weekend [Monday OR=1 (reference); Tuesday OR=1.04 (95% CI=0.97-1.11); Wednesday OR=1.08 (95% CI=0.98-1.19); Thursday OR=1.12 (95% CI=1.03-1.22); Friday OR=1.24 (95% CI=1.10-1.38)]. Mortality was also higher among patients who underwent urgent/emergent surgery after admission on the weekend relative to admission on weekdays (OR=1.27; 95% CI=1.08-1.49). CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative mortality rises as the day of the week of elective surgery approaches the weekend, and is higher after admission for urgent/emergent surgery on the weekend compared with weekdays. Future research should focus on clarifying underlying causes of this association and potentially mitigating its impact.

SUBMITTER: Smith SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5770102 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Smith Stephen A SA Yamamoto Jennifer M JM Roberts Derek J DJ Tang Karen L KL Ronksley Paul E PE Dixon Elijah E Buie W Donald WD James Matthew T MT

Medical care 20180201 2

<h4>Background</h4>An association between weekend health care delivery and poor outcomes has become known as the "weekend effect." Evidence for such an association among surgery patients has not previously been synthesized.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review associations between weekend surgical care and postoperative mortality.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and references of relevant articles for studies that compared postoperative mortality either; (1) according to the day ...[more]

PMID: 29251716

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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 .

Dataset Information

Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Publications

Weekend Surgical Care and Postoperative Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets