Citations

Abstract Background Geographic cohorting (GCh) is a popular model of care that localizes physician teams to a single hospital unit. Objectives We conducted a scoping review identifying the aims, implementation strategies, study methods, and measured outcomes of GCh. Methods We searched the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Embase, and Scopus databases. Eligible citations included English language reports of interventions including GCh in adult patients. Included studies were screened for their aim, GCh implementation strategy, study method, and outcomes measured. Results Of 1863 identified citations, 30 met inclusion criteria, representing 27 interventions. Implementation aims varied from specific goals measured by a single metric to multiple outcomes intended to capture wide‐ranging effects of GCh. A majority of studies ( n = 13, 48.1%) used a pre‐post cohort design. GCh was implemented in one of four ways: (1) as a stand‐alone intervention, (2) bundled with accountable care unit elements, (3) bundled with care components that did not include all ACU elements, (4) GCh bundled with ACU elements and additional components (“enhanced” ACU). The measured outcomes sorted to eight different categories: patient outcomes, patient safety, patient experience, work flow, workload, clinician experience, communication/team work, and cost. Conclusions The current literature on GCh describes implementation as both a stand‐alone intervention and bundled with other care elements. Current research has not delineated whether the degree to which GCh is implemented matters, nor what impact it has as part of a bundled care intervention. Future work would benefit from a prospective design that clarifies these questions, facilitating care models tailored to the needs of the practice ecosystem.

Objective Specific sedative hypnotic agents, administered to facilitate endotracheal intubation (ETI) in critically ill adults, may lead to adverse outcomes such as peri-intubation cardiovascular collapse. However, little is known from systematic investigations of the impact these individual agents have on cardiovascular function or other clinical outcomes. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus and Web of science databases. Study selection We conducted a systematic search for randomized and non-randomized studies that evaluated adult (≥18 years) critically ill patients who were sedated to facilitate ETI with ketamine, propofol, ketamine/propofol, etomidate, or a benzodiazepine and who had data on peri-intubation hemodynamics and at least one other outcome involving acute kidney injury, delirium, opioid use, intubation difficulty, sequential organ failure assessment, length of stay, or mortality. Eighty-five studies were identified for eligibility assessment with 23 included in the analysis. Data extraction Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data from selected articles, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I for observational studies and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Data synthesis Acute cardiovascular dysfunction (peri-intubation hemodynamic instability and/or cardiac arrest) was similar between etomidate and ketamine with more events seen when propofol versus non-propofol sedation was administered. However, exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between etomidate and ketamine (OR 1.05 [95%CI 0.60-1.84]) or between etomidate and propofol (OR 0.91 [95%CI 0.33-2.46]). Compared to ketamine, etomidate demonstrated lower survival to hospital discharge in the included studies in exploratory meta-analysis OR 0.76 (95%CI 0.62-0.92). Limited data existed for other outcomes with no discernible differences between sedative agents. Conclusions Acute cardiovascular dysfunction was more common when propofol, as compared to non-propofol sedation, was administered, although not statistically significant in exploratory meta-analysis. In addition, etomidate conferred lower survival to hospital discharge versus non-etomidate sedation, which was confirmed in exploratory meta-analysis of etomidate versus ketamine.

The impact of bariatric surgery (BS) on kidney transplantation (KT) outcomes in patients with obesity remains controversial. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting outcomes of KT recipients that underwent prior BS. Common/random effects meta-analyses were performed to obtain summary ratios of the postoperative outcomes. Eighteen eligible studies involving 315 patients were identified. Sleeve gastrectomy was the most common BS type (65.7%) followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (27.6%) and gastric banding (4.4%). Across studies that provided the data, the %excess weight loss from BS to KT was 62.79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.01-73.56; range, 46.2%-80.3%). The rates of delayed graft function and acute rejection were 16% (95% CI, 7%-28%) and 16% (95% CI, 11%-23%) in 14 and 11 studies that provided this data, respectively. The rates of wound, urinary, and vascular complications following KT were 5% (95% CI, 0%-13%),19% (95% CI, 2%-42%), and 2% (95% CI, 0%-5%), in 12, 9, and 11 studies that provided this data, respectively. Follow-up time after KT was reported in 11 studies (61.1%) and ranged from 16 mo to >5 y. Graft loss was reported in 14 studies with an average of 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%). Four studies that included a comparator group of patients with obesity who did not undergo BS before KT showed comparable outcomes between the groups. We conclude that currently there is a paucity of robust evidence to suggest that pretransplant BS has a major effect on post-KT outcomes. High-quality studies are needed to fully evaluate the impact of BS on KT outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acquired brain injury (BI) is associated with negative mental health outcomes for both people with BI, their caregivers (CG), and patient-CG dyads, which may be mitigated through increased resilience. However, little is known regarding the efficacy of resilience interventions focused on CGs of individuals with BI, as well as dyads, which may be instrumental for positive outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence of the efficacy of resilience interventions focused on CGs and/or dyads of individuals with BI. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Scopus, SCIE, and ESCI was conducted. Each title and abstract were screened by two authors independently. Each full text review, study data extraction, and study quality assessment was performed independently by two authors. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Out of 11,959 articles retrieved, 347 full text articles were assessed for review and 18 met inclusion criteria for data extraction and quality assessment. Resilience interventions were stratified into 5 different categories based on the type of intervention. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that dyadic/CG resilience interventions may improve mental health related outcomes, but conclusions were limited secondary to heterogenous outcomes and lack of a standardized resiliency construct. Future efforts are compulsory to create a standardized resiliency construct and associated outcomes focused on persons with BI, their CGs, and dyads.

Background: Prolonged symptoms after COVID-19 are an important concern due to the large numbers affected by the pandemic. Objectives: To ascertain the frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations as part of long GI COVID. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting GI manifestations in long COVID was performed. Data Sources and Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) were searched till 21 December 2021 to identify studies reporting frequency of GI symptoms in long COVID. We included studies reporting overall GI manifestations or individual GI symptoms as part of long COVID. We excluded pediatric studies and those not providing relevant information. We calculated the pooled frequency of various symptoms in all patients with COVID-19 and also in those with long COVID using the inverse variance approach. All analysis was done using R version 4.1.1 using packages ‘meta’ and ‘metafor’. Results: A total of 50 studies were included. The frequencies of GI symptoms were 0.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06–0.22, I 2 = 99%] and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.10–0.41, I 2 = 97%) in patients with COVID-19 and those with long COVID, respectively. The frequencies of abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, loss of appetite, and loss of taste were 0.14 (95% CI, 0.04–0.38, I 2 = 96%), 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03–0.11, I 2 = 98%), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.08–0.43, I 2 = 98%), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.10–0.27, I 2 = 95%), respectively, after COVID-19. The frequencies of diarrhea, dyspepsia, and irritable bowel syndrome were 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04–0.23, I 2 = 98%), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.06–0.50, I 2 = 97%), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.06–0.37, I 2 = 96%), respectively. Conclusion: GI symptoms in patients were seen in 12% after COVID-19 and 22% as part of long COVID. Loss of appetite, dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, loss of taste, and abdominal pain were the five most common GI symptoms of long COVID. Significant heterogeneity and small number of studies for some of the analyses are limitations of the systematic review.