Suppr超能文献

加强型内科医生配置模式是否会影响 ICU 入院后的医院死亡率?系统评价和荟萃分析。

Do intensivist staffing patterns influence hospital mortality following ICU admission? A systematic review and meta-analyses.

机构信息

1Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2Section of General Internal Medicine, Lakeridge Health Oshawa, Oshawa, ON, Canada. 3Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 4Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 5Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, London, United Kingdom. 7Department of Anesthesiology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY. 8Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2253-74. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318292313a.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of different intensivist staffing models on clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

A sensitive search of electronic databases and hand-search of major critical care journals and conference proceedings was completed in October 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative observational studies examining intensivist staffing patterns and reporting hospital or ICU mortality were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Of 16,774 citations, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case-mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity using I. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Score for cohort studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

High-intensity staffing (i.e., transfer of care to an intensivist-led team or mandatory consultation of an intensivist), compared to low-intensity staffing, was associated with lower hospital mortality (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99) and ICU mortality (pooled risk ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Significant reductions in hospital and ICU length of stay were seen (-0.17 d, 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.03 d and -0.38 d, 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.20 d, respectively). Within high-intensity staffing models, 24-hour in-hospital intensivist coverage, compared to daytime only coverage, did not improved hospital or ICU mortality (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.1 and risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1). The benefit of high-intensity staffing was concentrated in surgical (risk ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.44-1.6) and combined medical-surgical (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) ICUs, as compared to medical (risk ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.83-1.5) ICUs. The effect on hospital mortality varied throughout different decades; pooled risk ratios were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87) from 1980 to 1989, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.69-1.3) from 1990 to 1999, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.90) from 2000 to 2009, and 1.2 (95% CI, 0.84-1.8) from 2010 to 2012. These findings were similar for ICU mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

High-intensity staffing is associated with reduced ICU and hospital mortality. Within a high-intensity model, 24-hour in-hospital intensivist coverage did not reduce hospital, or ICU, mortality. Benefits seen in mortality were dependent on the type of ICU and decade of publication.

摘要

目的

确定不同的重症监护医生配备模式对危重症患者临床结局的影响。

资料来源

2012 年 10 月,我们对电子数据库进行了敏感检索,并对手工检索了主要的重症监护期刊和会议记录。

研究选择

纳入了比较观察性研究,这些研究检查了重症监护医生的配备模式,并报告了医院或 ICU 死亡率。

资料提取

在 16774 条引文中,有 52 项研究符合纳入标准。我们使用未调整病例组合或聚类效应的随机效应荟萃分析模型,并使用 I 量化研究间异质性。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对队列研究进行了研究质量评估。

资料综合

与低强度人员配备相比,高强度人员配备(即,将护理转交给由重症监护医生领导的团队或强制性咨询重症监护医生)与较低的医院死亡率(风险比,0.83;95%置信区间,0.70-0.99)和 ICU 死亡率(合并风险比,0.81;95%置信区间,0.68-0.96)相关。住院和 ICU 住院时间显著缩短(分别为-0.17 天,95%置信区间,-0.31 至-0.03 天和-0.38 天,95%置信区间,-0.55 至-0.20 天)。在高强度人员配备模式中,与仅白天覆盖相比,24 小时院内重症监护医生覆盖并未改善医院或 ICU 死亡率(风险比,0.97;95%置信区间,0.89-1.1 和风险比,0.88;95%置信区间,0.70-1.1)。高强度人员配备的益处集中在外科(风险比,0.84;95%置信区间,0.44-1.6)和联合内科-外科(风险比,0.76;95%置信区间,0.66-0.83)ICU,而不是内科(风险比,1.1;95%置信区间,0.83-1.5)ICU。医院死亡率的影响因不同的十年而有所不同;1980 年至 1989 年的合并风险比为 0.74(95%置信区间,0.63-0.87),1990 年至 1999 年为 0.96(95%置信区间,0.69-1.3),2000 年至 2009 年为 0.70(95%置信区间,0.54-0.90),2010 年至 2012 年为 1.2(95%置信区间,0.84-1.8)。这些发现与 ICU 死亡率相似。

结论

高强度人员配备与降低 ICU 和医院死亡率相关。在高强度模式下,24 小时院内重症监护医生覆盖并未降低医院或 ICU 的死亡率。在死亡率方面看到的益处取决于 ICU 的类型和发表的十年。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验