OBJECTIVE: To identify pre-operative factors associated with in-hospital mortality following lung resection and to construct a risk model that could be used prospectively to inform decisions and retrospectively to enable fair comparisons of outcomes. METHODS: Data were submitted to the European Thoracic Surgery Database from 27 units in 14 countries. We analysed data concerning all patients that had a lung resection. Logistic regression was used with a random sample of 60% of cases to identify pre-operative factors associated with in-hospital mortality and to build a model of risk. The resulting model was tested on the remaining 40% of patients. A second model based on age and ppoFEV1% was developed for risk of in-hospital death amongst tumour resection patients. RESULTS: Of the 3426 adult patients that had a first lung resection for whom mortality data were available, 66 died within the same hospital admission. Within the data used for model development, dyspnoea (according to the Medical Research Council classification), ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) score, class of procedure and age were found to be significantly associated with in-hospital death in a multivariate analysis. The logistic model developed on these data displayed predictive value when tested on the remaining data. CONCLUSIONS: Two models of the risk of in-hospital death amongst adult patients undergoing lung resection have been developed. The models show predictive value and can be used to discern between high-risk and low-risk patients. Amongst the test data, the model developed for all diagnoses performed well at low risk, underestimated mortality at medium risk and overestimated mortality at high risk. The second model for resection of lung neoplasms was developed after establishing the performance of the first model and so could not be tested robustly. That said, we were encouraged by its performance over the entire range of estimated risk. The first of these two models could be regarded as an evaluation based on clinically available criteria while the second uses data obtained from objective measurement. We are optimistic that further model development and testing will provide a tool suitable for case mix adjustment.
OBJECTIVE: To identify pre-operative factors associated with in-hospital mortality following lung resection and to construct a risk model that could be used prospectively to inform decisions and retrospectively to enable fair comparisons of outcomes. METHODS: Data were submitted to the European Thoracic Surgery Database from 27 units in 14 countries. We analysed data concerning all patients that had a lung resection. Logistic regression was used with a random sample of 60% of cases to identify pre-operative factors associated with in-hospital mortality and to build a model of risk. The resulting model was tested on the remaining 40% of patients. A second model based on age and ppoFEV1% was developed for risk of in-hospital death amongst tumour resection patients. RESULTS: Of the 3426 adult patients that had a first lung resection for whom mortality data were available, 66 died within the same hospital admission. Within the data used for model development, dyspnoea (according to the Medical Research Council classification), ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) score, class of procedure and age were found to be significantly associated with in-hospital death in a multivariate analysis. The logistic model developed on these data displayed predictive value when tested on the remaining data. CONCLUSIONS: Two models of the risk of in-hospital death amongst adult patients undergoing lung resection have been developed. The models show predictive value and can be used to discern between high-risk and low-risk patients. Amongst the test data, the model developed for all diagnoses performed well at low risk, underestimated mortality at medium risk and overestimated mortality at high risk. The second model for resection of lung neoplasms was developed after establishing the performance of the first model and so could not be tested robustly. That said, we were encouraged by its performance over the entire range of estimated risk. The first of these two models could be regarded as an evaluation based on clinically available criteria while the second uses data obtained from objective measurement. We are optimistic that further model development and testing will provide a tool suitable for case mix adjustment.