Bakhru Rita N, Flores Lori, Cain J Maycee, Province Valesha, Fanning Jason, Rawal Himanshu, Bundy Richa, Obermiller Corey S, Moses Adam, Dharod Ajay, Abdelfattah Lindsey, Hanchate Amresh, Files D Clark
Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Diseases.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2025 Sep;211(9):1662-1670. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202411-2167OC.
Survivors of critical illness are at high risk for poor long-term outcomes, including readmissions, reduced quality of life, and mortality. A post-ICU telehealth care model may improve outcomes. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of a post-ICU telehealth care model. We performed a single-center randomized controlled trial of 400 ICU patients with sepsis and/or acute respiratory failure, who had two or fewer hospital admissions in the past year, and who were not admitted from or discharged to hospice, a skilled nursing facility, or a long-term acute care hospital. The intervention group had scheduled telehealth visits at 1 and 2 weeks after ICU discharge and as needed for 6 months with a clinician trained in post-ICU recovery. The primary outcome is the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Overall healthcare spending on emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations were a mean (SD, in U.S. dollars) $7,801.10 ($15,461.03) in the attention control group versus $8,086.50 ($17,464.87) in the intervention group, with a calculated incremental net benefit of $1,958.29 (-$5,779.56 to $9,696.14). ER visits to our healthcare system were the same between groups, but patient-reported ER visits to outside hospitals were different (0.97 per 100 patients per month in the attention control group vs. 2.43 in the intervention group; = 0.03). Readmissions, mortality, quality-of-life scores, and overall patient satisfaction scores were similar between groups. This randomized controlled trial of a post-ICU telehealth intervention demonstrated wide variation but no clear incremental net benefit compared with standard care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04576065).
危重病幸存者面临长期预后不良的高风险,包括再次入院、生活质量下降和死亡。重症监护病房(ICU)后的远程医疗模式可能会改善预后。我们旨在评估ICU后远程医疗模式的成本效益和临床疗效。我们对400例患有败血症和/或急性呼吸衰竭的ICU患者进行了一项单中心随机对照试验,这些患者在过去一年中住院次数为两次或更少,且不是从临终关怀机构、专业护理机构或长期急性护理医院入院或出院。干预组在ICU出院后1周和2周安排了远程医疗随访,并在6个月内根据需要进行随访,随访医生为经过ICU后康复培训的临床医生。主要结局是干预措施的成本效益。在对照关注组中,急诊室(ER)就诊和住院的总体医疗费用平均(标准差,以美元计)为7,801.10美元(15,461.03美元),而干预组为8,086.50美元(17,464.87美元),计算得出的增量净效益为1,958.29美元(-5,779.56美元至9,696.14美元)。两组之间到我们医疗系统的急诊室就诊次数相同,但患者报告的到外部医院的急诊室就诊次数不同(对照关注组为每100名患者每月0.97次,干预组为2.43次;P = 0.03)。两组之间的再次入院率、死亡率、生活质量评分和总体患者满意度评分相似。这项ICU后远程医疗干预的随机对照试验表明,与标准护理相比存在广泛差异,但没有明显的增量净效益。临床试验已在www.clinicaltrials.gov注册(NCT04576065)。