9 7 8 1 6
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.3 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.4 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.5 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.5 Clin Interv Aging
- 4.7 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 2.7 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.5 Int J Women's Health
- 2.5 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.7 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.3 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 2.8 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 2.8 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.0 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.7 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.2 J Inflamm Res
- 2.1 Int J Gen Med
- 4.2 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.7 J Asthma Allergy
- 1.9 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.7 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
肺癌手术中强化的恢复方案：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Authors Li S, Zhou K, Che G, Yang M, Su J, Shen C, Yu P
Received 31 August 2017
Accepted for publication 16 October 2017
Published 16 November 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 657—670
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S150500
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Akshita Wason
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Luzhe Sun
Background: Enhanced
recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is an effective evidence-based
multidisciplinary protocol of perioperative care, but its roles in thoracic
surgery remain unclear. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of the ERAS programs for
lung cancer surgery.
Materials and methods: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify the RCTs that implemented an ERAS program encompassing more than four care elements within at least two phases of perioperative care in lung cancer surgery. The heterogeneity levels between studies were estimated by the Cochrane Collaborations. A qualitative review was performed if considerable heterogeneity was revealed. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference served as the summarized statistics for the meta-analyses. Additional analyses were also performed to perceive potential bias risks.
Results: A total of seven RCTs enrolling 486 patients were included. The meta-analysis indicated that the ERAS group patients had significantly lower morbidity rates (RR=0.64; p <0.001), especially the rates of pulmonary (RR=0.43; p <0.001) and surgical complications (RR=0.46; p =0.010), than those of control group patients. No significant reduction was found in the in-hospital mortality (RR=0.70; p =0.58) or cardiovascular complications (RR=1.46; p =0.25). In the qualitative review, most of the evidence reported significantly shortened length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and decreased hospitalization costs in the ERAS-treated patients. No significant publication bias was detected in the meta-analyses.
Conclusion: Our review demonstrates that the implementation of an ERAS program for lung cancer surgery can effectively accelerate postoperative recovery and save hospitalization costs without compromising patients’ safety. A worldwide consensus guideline is urgently required to standardize the ERAS protocols for elective lung resections in the future.
Keywords: enhanced recovery after surgery, lung cancer surgery, morbidity, systematic review, meta-analysis
Materials and methods: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify the RCTs that implemented an ERAS program encompassing more than four care elements within at least two phases of perioperative care in lung cancer surgery. The heterogeneity levels between studies were estimated by the Cochrane Collaborations. A qualitative review was performed if considerable heterogeneity was revealed. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference served as the summarized statistics for the meta-analyses. Additional analyses were also performed to perceive potential bias risks.
Results: A total of seven RCTs enrolling 486 patients were included. The meta-analysis indicated that the ERAS group patients had significantly lower morbidity rates (RR=0.64; p <0.001), especially the rates of pulmonary (RR=0.43; p <0.001) and surgical complications (RR=0.46; p =0.010), than those of control group patients. No significant reduction was found in the in-hospital mortality (RR=0.70; p =0.58) or cardiovascular complications (RR=1.46; p =0.25). In the qualitative review, most of the evidence reported significantly shortened length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and decreased hospitalization costs in the ERAS-treated patients. No significant publication bias was detected in the meta-analyses.
Conclusion: Our review demonstrates that the implementation of an ERAS program for lung cancer surgery can effectively accelerate postoperative recovery and save hospitalization costs without compromising patients’ safety. A worldwide consensus guideline is urgently required to standardize the ERAS protocols for elective lung resections in the future.
Keywords: enhanced recovery after surgery, lung cancer surgery, morbidity, systematic review, meta-analysis
