Dataset Information

Effects of comprehensive geriatric care models on postoperative outcomes in geriatric surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Method

We 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.

Results

Eleven 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.

Conclusions

The 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 registration

PROSPERO registration number - CRD42020181779 .

SUBMITTER: Saripella A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8061210 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSurgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery is a major source of postoperative morbidity. Although studies have demonstrated perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) to be beneficial in the prevention of SSI among spinal surgery patients, consensus is lacking over whether preoperative or extended postoperative AMP is most efficacious. To date, no meta-analysis has investigated the comparative efficacy of these two temporally variable AMP protocols in spinal surgery. We undertook a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine whether extended postoperative AMP is associated with a difference in the rate of SSI occurrence among adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.MethodsEmbase and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for clinical trials and cohort studies directly comparing SSI rates among adult spinal surgery patients receiving either preoperative or extended postoperative AMP. Quality of evidence of the overall study population was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Random effects meta-analyses were performed utilizing both pooled and stratified data based on instrumentation use.ResultsFive studies met inclusion criteria. No individual study demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of SSI occurrence between preoperative and extended postoperative AMP protocols. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Among the overall cohort of 2824 patients, 96% underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Pooled SSI rates were 1.38% (26/1887) for patients receiving extended postoperative AMP and 1.28% (12/937) for patients only receiving preoperative AMP. The risk of SSI development among patients receiving extended postoperative AMP was not significantly different from the risk of SSI development among patients only receiving preoperative AMP [RR (risk ratio), 1.11; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.53-2.36; p = 0.78]. The difference in risk of SSI development when comparing extended postoperative AMP to preoperative AMP was also not significant for both instrumented (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.15-5.75; p = 0.93) and non-instrumented spinal surgery (RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.49-3.17; p = 0.65). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects for all meta-analyses.ConclusionPreoperative AMP appears to provide equivalent protection against SSI development when compared to extended postoperative AMP. Prudent antibiotic use is also known to decrease hospital length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and risk of complications. However, until higher-quality evidence becomes available regarding AMP in spinal surgery, surgeons should continue to exercise discretion and clinical judgment when weighing the effects of patient comorbidities and complications before determining the optimal duration of perioperative AMP.

Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.