Palliative prognostic tools in surgical patients at the end of life: a systematic review

IF 9.2 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2025.03.008
Chuan-Whei Lee , Aaron B. Wong , Smaro Lazarakis , Wen Kwang Lim , Jai Darvall
{"title":"Palliative prognostic tools in surgical patients at the end of life: a systematic review","authors":"Chuan-Whei Lee ,&nbsp;Aaron B. Wong ,&nbsp;Smaro Lazarakis ,&nbsp;Wen Kwang Lim ,&nbsp;Jai Darvall","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.03.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Identifying surgical patients at the end of life (EOL) is the first step in integrating palliative and perioperative practices. Palliative prognostic tools (PPTs) are established frameworks from palliative care that assess patients at risk of early death. We conducted a systematic review investigating PPTs in adult surgical populations, their role in surgical decision-making, and their association with perioperative outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A prospectively registered systematic review was performed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023411303). Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) databases were searched for studies investigating PPTs in surgical patients. The primary outcome was the decision to proceed to surgery; secondary outcomes included mortality, quality of life, palliative care consultation, and EOL documentation completion. Abstract screening, full-text review, and study quality appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Results were synthesised narratively owing to study heterogeneity.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seven studies assessing four different PPTs were included in the review. Studies identified that 12–61% of surgical patients were at the EOL. Patients identified as being at the EOL by a PPT using an illness phase, trajectory approach, or both had an increased in-hospital and 12-month mortality. The impact on decisions to proceed to surgery was uncertain because of conflicting results. Palliative care referral and EOL document completion occurred in &lt;15% of surgical patients at the EOL. No studies described patient-reported outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Palliative prognostic tools have significant potential for incorporation into preoperative assessment. Future research should focus on preoperative end of life assessments and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life, decision satisfaction, and disability-free survival.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"134 6","pages":"Pages 1648-1660"},"PeriodicalIF":9.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091225001643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Identifying surgical patients at the end of life (EOL) is the first step in integrating palliative and perioperative practices. Palliative prognostic tools (PPTs) are established frameworks from palliative care that assess patients at risk of early death. We conducted a systematic review investigating PPTs in adult surgical populations, their role in surgical decision-making, and their association with perioperative outcomes.

Methods

A prospectively registered systematic review was performed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023411303). Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) databases were searched for studies investigating PPTs in surgical patients. The primary outcome was the decision to proceed to surgery; secondary outcomes included mortality, quality of life, palliative care consultation, and EOL documentation completion. Abstract screening, full-text review, and study quality appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Results were synthesised narratively owing to study heterogeneity.

Results

Seven studies assessing four different PPTs were included in the review. Studies identified that 12–61% of surgical patients were at the EOL. Patients identified as being at the EOL by a PPT using an illness phase, trajectory approach, or both had an increased in-hospital and 12-month mortality. The impact on decisions to proceed to surgery was uncertain because of conflicting results. Palliative care referral and EOL document completion occurred in <15% of surgical patients at the EOL. No studies described patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

Palliative prognostic tools have significant potential for incorporation into preoperative assessment. Future research should focus on preoperative end of life assessments and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life, decision satisfaction, and disability-free survival.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临终手术患者的姑息预后工具:系统回顾。
背景:在生命末期确定手术患者(EOL)是整合姑息治疗和围手术期实践的第一步。姑息预后工具(PPTs)是从姑息治疗中建立的框架,用于评估早期死亡风险的患者。我们进行了一项系统的综述,调查了成人手术人群的PPTs,它们在手术决策中的作用,以及它们与围手术期结果的关系。方法进行前瞻性注册系统评价(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42023411303)。我们检索了Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE和Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley)数据库中调查手术患者PPTs的研究。主要结果是决定进行手术;次要结局包括死亡率、生活质量、姑息治疗咨询和EOL文件完成情况。摘要筛选、全文审查和研究质量评价由两位作者独立完成。由于研究异质性,结果是叙述性综合的。结果本综述纳入了7项研究,评估了4种不同的pts。研究表明,12-61%的手术患者在EOL。使用疾病阶段、轨迹方法或两者同时使用PPT确定处于EOL的患者住院和12个月死亡率增加。由于相互矛盾的结果,对决定进行手术的影响是不确定的。姑息治疗转诊和EOL文件完成率在EOL手术患者中<15%。没有研究描述患者报告的结果。结论姑息性预后工具在术前评估中具有重要的应用价值。未来的研究应侧重于术前临终评估和患者报告的结果,如生活质量、决策满意度和无残疾生存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
Associate Editorial Board and cover image caption Prediction and risk evaluation of delirium after surgery in older patients: development and internal validation of an algorithm from the prospective BioCog cohort study. Documenting videolaryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: time to blend old ways with the new? Validation status of definitive airway management simulators: a systematic review. Responsibility cannot be abdicated: a mandate for Patient-Centred Precision Care in perioperative brain health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1