Postoperative cognitive dysfunction in older surgical patients associated with increased healthcare utilization: a prospective study from an upper-middle-income country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative neurocognitive disorder includes postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and postoperative delirium (POD). Concerning inconclusive consequences of POCD compared with POD, we explored the association between either POCD or POD and functional decline as well as healthcare utilization. METHODS: Patients aged at least 60 years who underwent a major operation were enrolled. POCD was defined as a decrease in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score (≥ 2) 1 week after surgery. Postoperative delirium (POD) was defined according to the criteria of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The primary outcome was instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) 3 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), hospital cost, and factors that affected functional decline 3 months after surgery. The multivariate model, including potential confounding factors, namely age, gender, surgery type, and postoperative complications, was used to analyze possible factors that influenced a reduction in function, and the results were expressed by using adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95%CI. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-nine patients with a mean age of 72 years were enrolled. The incidence of POCD at 1 week was 28.5%. At their 3-month follow-ups, the patients with POCD were not associated with IADL decline. Nevertheless, patients with POCD were more likely to need a prolonged LOS (11 days [1, 46] vs. 8 days [2, 42]; P = 0.01), and incur higher hospital costs (8973.43 USD [3481.69, 11 763.74] vs. 5913.62 USD [332.43, 19 567.33]; P < 0.001). Additionally, the patients experiencing POD demonstrated increased risks of reducing their IADLs (adjusted RR 2.33; 95% CI, 1.15-4.71; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: POCD at 1 week leaded to increase healthcare utilization in a middle-income country. POD during hospitalization was associated with a decline in function after surgery and increased health care utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20190115001 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".