Enhancing Quadruple Health Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Using Digital Home Monitoring
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Surgical recovery after hospital discharge often presents challenges for patients and caregivers. Postoperative complications and poorly managed pain at home can lead to unexpected visits to the emergency department (ED) and readmission to the hospital. Digital home monitoring (DHM) may improve postoperative care compared to standard methods. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess DHM's effectiveness following thoracic surgical procedures compared to standard care. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm parallel-group pilot RCT at a single tertiary care center. Adult patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups: the DHM group and the standard of care (control group). We adhered to the intention-to-treat analysis principle. The primary outcome was predetermined RCT feasibility criteria. The trial would be feasible if more than 75% of trial recruitment, protocol adherence, and data collection were achieved. Secondary outcomes included 30-day ED visit rates, 30-day readmission rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, postdischarge 30-day opioid consumption, 30-day quality of recovery, patient-program satisfaction, caregiver satisfaction, health care provider satisfaction, and cost per case. RESULTS: All RCT feasibility criteria were met. The trial recruitment rate was 87.9% (95% CI 79.4%-93.8%). Protocol adherence and outcome data collection rates were 96.3% (95% CI 89.4%-99.2%) and 98.7% (95% CI 92.9%-99.9%), respectively. In total, 80 patients were randomized, with 40 (50%) in the DHM group and 40 (50%) in the control group. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. The DHM group had fewer unplanned ED visits (2.7% vs 20.5%; P=.02), fewer unplanned admission rates (0% vs 7.6%; P=.24), lower rates of postoperative complications (20% vs 47.5%, P=.01) shorter hospital stays (4.0 vs 6.9 days; P=.05), but more opioid consumption (111.6, SD 110.9) vs 74.3, SD 71.9 mg morphine equivalents; P=.08) compared to the control group. DHM also resulted in shorter ED visit times (130, SD 0 vs 1048, SD 1093 minutes; P=.48) and lower cost per case (CAD $12,145 [US $ 8436.34], SD CAD $8779 [US $ 6098.20] vs CAD $17,247 [US $11,980.37], SD CAD $15,313 [US $10,636.95]; P=.07). The quality of recovery scores was clinically significantly better than the controls (185.4, SD 2.6 vs 178.3, SD 3.3; P<.001). All 37 patients who completed the intervention answered the program satisfaction survey questionnaires (100%; 95% CI 90.5%-100%). Only 36 out of 80 caregivers responded to the caregiver satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the fourth week post hospital discharge (47.7%; 95% CI 35.7%-59.1%). Health care providers reported a 100% satisfaction rate. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot RCT demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial to assess DHM's efficacy in improving postoperative care following thoracic surgery. DHM shows promise for enhancing continuity of care and warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04340960.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».