Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166642›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2024

Does preoperative multidisciplinary team assessment of high-risk patients improve the safety and outcomes of patients undergoing surgery?

B I Kuiper, L M J Janssen, K S Versteeg, B L Ten Tusscher, J I van der Spoel, W D Lubbers, G Kazemier, S A Loer, P Schober, V P van Halm

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B I Kuiper *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L M J Janssen *Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands. liedewij.janssen@amsterdamumc.nl.
K S VersteegDepartment of Internal medicine, section geriatrics, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B L Ten TusscherDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J I van der SpoelDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W D LubbersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
G KazemierDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S A LoerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
P SchoberDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
V P van HalmDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLCancer Center Amsterdam

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational guidelines recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment for high-risk surgical patients. Preoperative MDT meetings can help to improve surgical care, but there is little evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes.

methodsThis paper aims to share our experience of MDT meetings for high-risk surgical patients to underline their added value to the current standard of care. An observational study of a retrospective cohort of preoperative high-risk MDT meetings of a tertiary referral hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. For 249 patients the outcomes preoperative data, MDT decisions, and patient outcomes were collected from electronic health records. MAIN

resultsA total of 249 patients were discussed at high-risk MDT meetings. Most of the patients (97%) were assessed as having an American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥ 3, and 219 (88%) had a European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Anaesthesiology risk score of intermediate or high. After MDT assessment, 154 (62%) were directly approved for surgery, and 39 (16%) were considered ineligible for surgery. The remaining 56 (23%) patients underwent additional assessments before reconsideration at a high-risk MDT meeting. The main reason for patients being discussed at the high-risk MDT meeting was to assess the risk-benefit ratio of surgery. Ultimately, 184 (74%) patients underwent surgery. Of the operated patients, 122 (66%) did not have a major complication in the postoperative period, and 149 patients (81%) were alive after one year.

conclusionsThis cohort study shows the vulnerability and complexity of high-risk patients but also shows that the use of an MDT assessment contributes too improved peri- and postoperative treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Most patients underwent surgery after careful risk assessment and, if deemed necessary, preoperative and perioperative treatment optimization to reduce their risk.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyPatient Care TeamCohort StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesAnesthesiaFrailtyHigh-risk surgeryMultidisciplinary teamPreoperative consultation

Identifiers

PMID38166642
PMCPMC10759340
OpenAlexW4390496639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.