Lee Chuan-Whei, Wong Aaron B, Lazarakis Smaro, Lim Wen Kwang, Darvall Jai
Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Parkville Integrated Palliative Care Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Hospital, Australia; Department of Aged Care, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Supportive and Palliative Care, Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Br J Anaesth. 2025 Jun;134(6):1648-1660. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2025.03.008. Epub 2025 Apr 23.
Identifying surgical patients at the end of life (EOL) is the first step in integrating palliative and perioperative practices. Palliative prognostic tools (PPTs) are established frameworks from palliative care that assess patients at risk of early death. We conducted a systematic review investigating PPTs in adult surgical populations, their role in surgical decision-making, and their association with perioperative outcomes.
A prospectively registered systematic review was performed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023411303). Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) databases were searched for studies investigating PPTs in surgical patients. The primary outcome was the decision to proceed to surgery; secondary outcomes included mortality, quality of life, palliative care consultation, and EOL documentation completion. Abstract screening, full-text review, and study quality appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Results were synthesised narratively owing to study heterogeneity.
Seven studies assessing four different PPTs were included in the review. Studies identified that 12-61% of surgical patients were at the EOL. Patients identified as being at the EOL by a PPT using an illness phase, trajectory approach, or both had an increased in-hospital and 12-month mortality. The impact on decisions to proceed to surgery was uncertain because of conflicting results. Palliative care referral and EOL document completion occurred in <15% of surgical patients at the EOL. No studies described patient-reported outcomes.
Palliative prognostic tools have significant potential for incorporation into preoperative assessment. Future research should focus on preoperative end of life assessments and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life, decision satisfaction, and disability-free survival.
识别临终手术患者是整合姑息治疗与围手术期实践的第一步。姑息预后工具(PPTs)是姑息治疗中已确立的框架,用于评估有早期死亡风险的患者。我们进行了一项系统评价,调查成人手术人群中的PPTs、它们在手术决策中的作用以及与围手术期结局的关联。
进行了一项前瞻性注册的系统评价(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42023411303)。检索了Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE和Cochrane CENTRAL(Wiley)数据库,以查找调查手术患者PPTs的研究。主要结局是是否进行手术的决策;次要结局包括死亡率、生活质量、姑息治疗会诊以及临终文件的完成情况。由两位作者独立进行摘要筛选、全文审查和研究质量评估。由于研究的异质性,对结果进行了叙述性综合。
该评价纳入了7项评估4种不同PPTs的研究。研究发现,12%至61%的手术患者处于临终阶段。通过使用疾病阶段、病程方法或两者结合的PPT被确定为处于临终阶段的患者,其住院期间和12个月死亡率有所增加。由于结果相互矛盾,对是否进行手术决策的影响尚不确定。在临终手术患者中,<15%的患者接受了姑息治疗转诊并完成了临终文件。没有研究描述患者报告的结局。
姑息预后工具在纳入术前评估方面具有巨大潜力。未来的研究应关注术前临终评估以及患者报告的结局,如生活质量、决策满意度和无残疾生存期。