Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30791
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPham, Xiuxian-
dc.contributor.authorRay, Jason C-
dc.contributor.authorNeto, Ary Serpa-
dc.contributor.authorLaing, Joshua-
dc.contributor.authorPerucca, Piero-
dc.contributor.authorKwan, Patrick-
dc.contributor.authorO'Brien, Terence J-
dc.contributor.authorUdy, Andrew A-
dc.date2022-
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-06T06:47:04Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-06T06:47:04Z-
dc.date.issued2022-08-29-
dc.identifier.citationJAMA Neurology 2022; 79(10): 1049-1058en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30791-
dc.description.abstractNeurocritical care (NCC) aims to improve the outcomes of critically ill patients with brain injury, although the benefits of such subspecialized care are yet to be determined. To evaluate the association of NCC with patient-centered outcomes in adults with acute brain injury who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020177190). Three electronic databases were searched (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception through December 15, 2021, and by citation chaining. Studies were included for interventions of neurocritical care units (NCCUs), neurointensivists, or NCC consulting services compared with general care in populations of neurologically ill adults or adults with acute brain injury in ICUs. Data extraction was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines and risk of bias assessed through the ROBINS-I Cochrane tool by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at longest follow-up until 6 months. Secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and functional outcomes. Data were measured as risk ratio (RR) if dichotomous or standardized mean difference if continuous. Subgroup analyses were performed for disease and models of NCC delivery. After 5659 nonduplicated published records were screened, 26 nonrandomized observational studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis of mortality outcomes for 55 792 patients demonstrated a 17% relative risk reduction (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P = .001) in those receiving subspecialized care (n = 27 061) compared with general care (n = 27 694). Subgroup analyses did not identify subgroup differences. Eight studies including 4667 patients demonstrated a 17% relative risk reduction (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; P = .03) for an unfavorable functional outcome with subspecialized care compared with general care. There were no differences in LOS outcomes. Heterogeneity was substantial in all analyses. Subspecialized NCC is associated with improved survival and functional outcomes for critically ill adults with brain injury. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Further investigations are necessary to determine the specific aspects of NCC that contribute to these improved outcomes and its cost-effectiveness.en_US
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.titleAssociation of Neurocritical Care Services With Mortality and Functional Outcomes for Adults With Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJAMA Neurologyen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil..en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Careen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Intensive Care and Hyperbaric Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neurology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationBladin-Berkovic Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, Department of Neurology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationEpilepsy Research Centre, Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine and Neurology, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationNeurologyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2456en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.pubmedid36036899-
local.name.researcherPerucca, Piero
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptNeurology-
crisitem.author.deptNeurology-
crisitem.author.deptComprehensive Epilepsy Program-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

30
checked on Mar 1, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.