Cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To identify the association between cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and outcomes of radical cystectomy (RC), as RC is historically associated with high rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This quantitative systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. An electronic literature search was conducted to identify all relevant studies evaluating the relationship between CPET parameters and RC outcomes. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and rate of serious adverse events as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: The search identified six studies for inclusion. A total of 546 patients underwent CPET prior to RC. There were significantly more deaths following RC observed in patients with poorer cardiopulmonary function (risk ratio RR 5.80, 95% confidence interval 4.96-6.78). There was no significant association between CPET parameters and adverse events or hospital LOS. CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis identified a greater risk of 90-day mortality in patients with poorer cardiorespiratory function, as measured by CPET. However, there remains a paucity of robust clinical data and further high-quality studies are required to verify these results.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
- Date Crossref
- 11/09/2024
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.