Critical care transition programs on readmission or death: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deterioration after ICU discharge may lead to readmission or even death. Interventions (eg, critical care transition programs) have been developed to improve the clinical handover between the ICU and the ward. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) according to Cochrane Handbook and Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) methodology to assess the impact of these interventions on readmission and death (PROSPERO, no CRD42019121746). METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from inception until January 2019. We included historically controlled studies that evaluated critical care transition programs in adults discharged from the ICU. Readmission and in-hospital mortality were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias, publications bias, and the quality of evidence were assessed with the ROBINS-Itool, funnel plot and GRADE, respectively. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies were included (11 in meta-analysis). All studies had at least serious risk of bias. ICU discharge within a critical care transition program modestly reduced the risk of readmission (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96; TSA-adjusted 95% CI: 0.59-1.03) but not in-hospital mortality (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.64-1.06; TSA-adjusted 95% CI: 0.49-1.37). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies. TSA indicated lack of firm evidence. The GRADE quality of evidence on outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear benefit in terms of reducing risk of readmission or death after ICU discharge, however, with overall very low certainty of evidence.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of a 3-year trial of lifestyle intervention in primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle interventions reduce cardiovascular risk and risk of diabetes mellitus, but reports on long-term effects on quality of life (QOL) and health care utilization are rare. We investigated the impact of a primary health care-based lifestyle intervention program on QOL and cost-effectiveness over 3 years. METHODS: A total of 151 men and women, aged 18 to 65 years, at moderate to high risk for cardiovascular disease, were randomly assigned to either lifestyle intervention with standard care or standard care alone. Intervention consisted of supervised exercise sessions and diet counseling for 3 months, followed by regular group meetings over a 3-year period. Change in QOL was measured with EuroQol (5-dimensional EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] and EuroQol-VAS [EQ-VAS]), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the 6-dimensional Short-Form 6D (SF-6D). The health economic evaluation was performed from a societal view and a treatment perspective. In a cost-utility analysis, the costs, gained quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and savings in health care were considered. Cost-effectiveness was also described using the net monetary benefit method. RESULTS: Significant differences between the groups over the 3-year period were shown in the EQ-VAS (P = .002), SF-6D (P = .01), and SF-36 (P = .04) physical component summary but not in the EQ-5D (P = .24) or SF-36 (P = .37) mental component summary. The net savings were $47 per participant. Costs per gained QALY, savings not counted, were $1668 to $4813. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 89% to 100% when the amount of $50,000 was used as stakeholder's threshold of willingness to pay for a gained QALY. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle intervention in primary care improves QOL and is highly cost-effective in relation to standard care. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00486941.