Literature DB >> 16872967

Direct comparison of risk-adjusted and non-risk-adjusted CUSUM analyses of coronary artery bypass surgery outcomes.

Richard J Novick1, Stephanie A Fox, Larry W Stitt, Thomas L Forbes, Stefan Steiner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We previously applied non-risk-adjusted cumulative sum methods to analyze coronary bypass outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the incremental advantage of risk-adjusted cumulative sum methods in this setting.
METHODS: Prospective data were collected in 793 consecutive patients who underwent coronary bypass grafting performed by a single surgeon during a period of 5 years. The composite occurrence of an "adverse outcome" included mortality or any of 10 major complications. An institutional logistic regression model for adverse outcome was developed by using 2608 contemporaneous patients undergoing coronary bypass. The predicted risk of adverse outcome in each of the surgeon's 793 patients was then calculated. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve was then generated after specifying control limits and odds ratio. This risk-adjusted curve was compared with the non-risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve, and the clinical significance of this difference was assessed.
RESULTS: The surgeon's adverse outcome rate was 96 of 793 (12.1%) versus 270 of 1815 (14.9%) for all the other institution's surgeons combined (P = .06). The non-risk-adjusted curve reached below the lower control limit, signifying excellent outcomes between cases 164 and 313, 323 and 407, and 667 and 793, but transgressed the upper limit between cases 461 and 478. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve never transgressed the upper control limit, signifying that cases preceding and including 461 to 478 were at an increased predicted risk. Furthermore, if the risk-adjusted cumulative sum curve was reset to zero whenever a control limit was reached, it still signaled a decrease in adverse outcome at 166, 653, and 782 cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjusted cumulative sum techniques provide incremental advantages over non-risk-adjusted methods by not signaling a decrement in performance when preoperative patient risk is high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16872967     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.02.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  15 in total

1.  Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; Mallika Anand; Amy L Weaver; Joshua L Woelk; Christopher J Klingele; Emanuel C Trabuco; John A Occhino; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Real-time outcome monitoring following oesophagectomy using cumulative sum techniques.

Authors:  Geoffrey Roberts; Cheuk-Bong Tang; Mike Harvey; Sritharan Kadirkamanathan
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-10-27

3.  Risk-adjusted number-between failures charting procedures for monitoring a patient care process for acute myocardial infarctions.

Authors:  Fah Fatt Gan; Tess Tan
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2010-09

4.  Learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation method for totally extraperitoneal repair of the inguinal hernia.

Authors:  Jiyoung Rhu; Kiyoung Sung; Chang Hyeok An; Jinbeom Cho
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bailit; William A Grobman; Madeline Murguia Rice; Catherine Y Spong; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Phillip J Shubert; Alan T Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Sean C Blackwell; Jorge E Tolosa; J Peter Van Dorsten
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Proposed thresholds for pancreatic tissue volume for safe intraportal islet autotransplantation after total pancreatectomy.

Authors:  J J Wilhelm; M D Bellin; T B Dunn; A N Balamurugan; T L Pruett; D M Radosevich; S Chinnakotla; S J Schwarzenberg; M L Freeman; B J Hering; D E R Sutherland; G J Beilman
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Significance of likes: Analysing passive interactions on Facebook during campaigning.

Authors:  Mohammad Adib Khairuddin; Asha Rao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Learning curves for three specific procedures by anesthesiology residents using the learning curve cumulative sum (LC-CUSUM) test.

Authors:  Gregoire Weil; Cyrus Motamed; David J Biau; Marie Laurence Guye
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-01-12

9.  Detecting change in comparison to peers in NHS prescribing data: a novel application of cumulative sum methodology.

Authors:  Alex J Walker; Seb Bacon; Richard Croker; Ben Goldacre
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Risk-adjusted monitoring of surgical performance.

Authors:  Jianbo Li; Jiancheng Jiang; Xuejun Jiang; Lin Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.