Jeppesen Elisabeth, Brurberg Kjetil G, Vist Gunn E, Wedzicha Jadwiga A, Wright John J, Greenstone Michael, Walters Julia A E
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;2012(5):CD003573. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003573.pub2.
Hospital at home schemes are a recently adopted method of service delivery for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aimed at reducing demand for acute hospital inpatient beds and promoting a patient-centred approach through admission avoidance. However, evidence in support of such a service is contradictory.
To evaluate the efficacy of hospital at home compared to hospital inpatient care in acute exacerbations of COPD.
Trials were identified from searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR). The review authors checked the reference lists of included trials. The CAGR was searched up to February 2012. The additional databases were searched up to October 2010.
We considered randomised controlled trials where patients presented to the emergency department with an exacerbation of their COPD. Studies must not have recruited patients for whom treatment at home is usually not viewed as an responsible option (e.g. patients with an impaired level of consciousness, acute confusion, acute changes on the radiograph or electrocardiogram, arterial pH less than 7.35, concomitant medical conditions).
Two review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data for each of the included trials.
Eight trials with 870 patients were included in the review and showed a significant reduction in readmission rates for hospital at home compared with hospital inpatient care of acute exacerbations of COPD (risk ratio (RR)0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). Moreover, we observed a trend towards lower mortality in the hospital at home group, but the pooled effect estimate did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04, P = 0.07). For health-related quality of life, lung function (FEV1) and direct costs, the quality of the available evidence is in general too weak to make firm conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients presenting to hospital emergency departments with acute exacerbations of COPD can be safely and successfully treated at home with support from respiratory nurses. We found evidence of moderate quality that hospital at home may be advantageous with respect to readmission rates in these patients. Treatment of acute exacerbation of COPD in hospital at home also show a trend towards reduced mortality rate when compared with conventional inpatient treatment, but these results did not reach statistical significance (moderate quality evidence). For other outcomes than readmission and mortality rate, we assessed the evidence to be of low or very low quality.
居家医院模式是一种最近采用的服务提供方式,用于管理慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重期,旨在减少对急性医院住院床位的需求,并通过避免住院来促进以患者为中心的方法。然而,支持这种服务的证据相互矛盾。
评估与住院治疗相比,居家医院模式对COPD急性加重期的疗效。
通过检索电子数据库来识别试验,包括Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库以及Cochrane Airways Group Register(CAGR)。综述作者检查了纳入试验的参考文献列表。检索CAGR截至2012年2月。检索其他数据库截至2010年10月。
我们考虑了随机对照试验,其中患者因COPD急性加重而就诊于急诊科。研究不得招募那些通常不被视为适合居家治疗的患者(例如意识水平受损、急性意识模糊、胸部X光或心电图有急性变化、动脉血pH值低于7.35、伴有其他疾病的患者)。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入文章,评估偏倚风险,并为每个纳入试验提取数据。
该综述纳入了8项试验共870例患者,结果显示与住院治疗COPD急性加重相比,居家医院模式的再入院率显著降低(风险比(RR)0.76;95%置信区间(CI)为0.59至0.99;P = 0.04)。此外,我们观察到居家医院组有较低死亡率的趋势,但合并效应估计未达到统计学显著性(RR 0.65,95% CI 0.40至1.04,P = 0.07)。对于与健康相关的生活质量、肺功能(第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1))和直接成本,现有证据的质量总体上太弱,无法得出确凿结论。
因COPD急性加重而就诊于医院急诊科的选定患者,在呼吸科护士的支持下可以在家中得到安全且成功的治疗。我们发现中等质量的证据表明,居家医院模式在这些患者的再入院率方面可能具有优势。与传统住院治疗相比,居家医院模式治疗COPD急性加重也显示出死亡率降低的趋势,但这些结果未达到统计学显著性(中等质量证据)。对于再入院率和死亡率以外的其他结局,我们评估证据质量为低或极低。