Echevarria Carlos, Brewin Karen, Horobin Hazel, Bryant Andrew, Corbett Sally, Steer John, Bourke Stephen C
a Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside General Hospital , Newcastle Upon Tyne , United Kingdom.
b Critical Care and Respiratory Medicine Physiotherapy, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Wansbeck General Hospital , Northumberland , United Kingdom.
COPD. 2016 Aug;13(4):523-33. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2015.1067885. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the safety, efficacy and cost of Early Supported Discharge (ESD) and Hospital at Home (HAH) compared to Usual Care (UC) for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). The structure of ESD/HAH schemes was reviewed, and analyses performed assuming return to hospital during the acute period (prior to discharge from home treatment) was, and was not, considered a readmission. The pre-defined search strategy completed in November 2014 included electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Amed, BNI, Cinahl and HMIC), libraries, current trials registers, national organisations, key respiratory journals, key author contact and grey literature. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESD/HAH to UC in patients admitted with AECOPD, or attending the emergency department and triaged for admission, were included. Outcome measures were mortality, all-cause readmissions to 6 months and cost. Eight RCTs were identified; seven reported mortality and readmissions. The structure of ESD/HAH schemes, particularly selection criteria applied and level of support provided, varied considerably. Compared to UC, ESD/HAH showed a trend towards lower mortality (RRMH = 0.66; 95% CI 0.40-1.09, p = 0.10). If return to hospital during the acute period was not considered a readmission, ESD/HAH was associated with fewer readmissions (RRMH = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60-0.90, p = 0.003), but if considered a readmission, the benefit was lost (RRMH = 0.84; 95% CI 0.69-1.01, p = 0.07). Costs were lower for ESD/HAH than UC. ESD/HAH is safe in selected patients with an AECOPD. Further research is required to define optimal criteria to guide patient selection and models of care.
进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估与常规治疗(UC)相比,早期支持出院(ESD)和居家医院(HAH)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)患者的安全性、有效性和成本。对ESD/HAH方案的结构进行了审查,并在假设急性期(在家治疗出院前)返回医院被视为和不被视为再入院的情况下进行了分析。2014年11月完成的预定义检索策略包括电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Amed、BNI、Cinahl和HMIC)、图书馆、当前试验注册库、国家组织、主要呼吸杂志、主要作者联系方式和灰色文献。纳入了比较ESD/HAH与UC治疗AECOPD入院患者或到急诊科就诊并被分诊入院患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。结局指标为死亡率、6个月内全因再入院率和成本。确定了8项RCT;7项报告了死亡率和再入院率。ESD/HAH方案的结构差异很大,尤其是所应用的选择标准和提供的支持水平。与UC相比,ESD/HAH显示出死亡率降低的趋势(随机效应模型风险比=0.66;95%置信区间0.40-1.09,p=0.10)。如果急性期返回医院不被视为再入院,ESD/HAH与较少的再入院相关(随机效应模型风险比=0.74,95%置信区间:0.60-0.90,p=0.003),但如果被视为再入院,则益处消失(随机效应模型风险比=0.84;95%置信区间0.69-1.01,p=0.07)。ESD/HAH的成本低于UC。ESD/HAH对选定的AECOPD患者是安全的。需要进一步研究以确定指导患者选择的最佳标准和护理模式。