FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

The association between cardiopulmonary exercise testing and postoperative outcomes in patients with lung cancer undergoing lung resection surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

by Nabeela Arbee-Kalidas, Hlamatsi Jacob Moutlana, Yoshan Moodley, Moses Mogakolodi Kebalepile, Palesa Motshabi Chakane

Background

Exercise capacity should be determined in all patients undergoing lung resection for lung cancer surgery and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) remains the gold standard. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between preoperative CPET and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing lung resection surgery for lung cancer through a review of the existing literature.

Methods

A search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception until December 2022. Studies investigating associations between preoperative CPET and postoperative outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. A random effect model meta-analysis was performed. I2 > 40% indicated a high level of heterogeneity.

Results

Thirty-seven studies were included with 6450 patients. Twenty-eight studies had low risk of bias. V˙O2 peak is the oxygen consumption at peak exercise and serves as a marker of cardiopulmonary fitness. Higher estimates of V˙O2 peak, measured and as a percentagege of predicted, showed significant associations with a lower risk of mortality [MD: 3.66, 95% CI: 0.88; 6.43 and MD: 16.49, 95% CI: 6.92; 26.07] and fewer complications [MD: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12; 3.00 and MD: 9.82, 95% CI: 5.88; 13.76]. Using a previously defined cutoff value of > 15mL/kg/min for V˙O2 peak, showed evidence of decreased odds of mortality [OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28–0.81] and but not decreased odds of postoperative morbidity [OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.64–1.00]. There was no relationship between V˙E/V˙CO2 slope, which depicts ventilatory efficiency, with mortality [MD: -9.60, 95% CI: -27.74; 8.54] however, patients without postoperative complications had a lower preoperative V˙E/V˙CO2 [MD: -2.36, 95% CI: -3.01; -1.71]. Exercise load and anaerobic threshold did not correlate with morbidity or mortality. There was significant heterogeneity between studies.

Conclusions

Estimates of cardiopulmonary fitness as evidenced by higher V˙O2 peak, measured and as a percentage of predicted, were associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. A cutoff value of V˙O2 peak > 15mL/kg/min was consistent with improved survival but not with fewer complications. Ventilatory efficiency was associated with decreased postoperative morbidity but not with improved survival. The heterogeneity in literature could be remedied with large scale, prospective, blinded, standardised research to improve preoperative risk stratification in patients with lung cancer scheduled for lung resection surgery.

What works for and what hinders deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice? A scoping review

Por: Gangathimmaiah · V. · Drever · N. · Evans · R. · Moodley · N. · Sen Gupta · T. · Cardona · M. · Carlisle · K.
Objectives

Low-value care can harm patients and healthcare systems. Despite a decade of global endeavours, low value care has persisted. Identification of barriers and enablers is essential for effective deimplementation of low-value care. This scoping review is an evidence summary of barriers, enablers and features of effective interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice worldwide.

Design

A mixed-methods scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework.

Data sources

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to 5 December 2022.

Eligibility criteria

Primary studies which employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore deimplementation of low-value care in an EM setting and reported barriers, enablers or interventions were included. Reviews, protocols, perspectives, comments, opinions, editorials, letters to editors, news articles, books, chapters, policies, guidelines and animal studies were excluded. No language limits were applied.

Data extraction and synthesis

Study selection, data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Barriers, enablers and interventions were mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment.

Results

The search yielded 167 studies. A majority were quantitative studies (90%, 150/167) that evaluated interventions (86%, 143/167). Limited provider abilities, diagnostic uncertainty, lack of provider insight, time constraints, fear of litigation, and patient expectations were the key barriers. Enablers included leadership commitment, provider engagement, provider training, performance feedback to providers and shared decision-making with patients. Interventions included one or more of the following facets: education, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback, clinical decision support, nudge, clinical champions and training. Multifaceted interventions were more likely to be effective than single-faceted interventions. Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions was influenced by fidelity of the intervention facets. Use of behavioural change theories such as the Theoretical Domains Framework in the published studies appeared to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to deimplement low-value care.

Conclusion

High-fidelity, multifaceted interventions that incorporated education, stakeholder engagement, audit/feedback and clinical decision support, were administered daily and lasted longer than 1 year were most effective in achieving deimplementation of low-value care in emergency departments. This review contributes the best available evidence to date, but further rigorous, theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are needed to supplement the growing body of evidence to effectively deimplement low-value care in emergency medicine practice.

❌