OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Charlson/Deyo, Elixhauser, Disease Staging, and All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups (APR-DRGs) algorithms for predicting in-hospital mortality after 3 types of major abdominal surgeries: gastric, hepatic, and pancreatic resections. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide sample. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2007. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥18 years) hospitalized with a primary or secondary procedure of gastric, hepatic, or pancreatic resection between 2002 and 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predicting in-hospital mortality using the 4 comorbidity algorithms. Logistic regression analyses were used and C statistics were calculated to assess the performance of the indexes. Risk adjustment methods were then compared. RESULTS: In our study, we identified 46,395 gastric resections, 18,234 hepatic resections, and 15,443 pancreatic resections. Predicted in-hospital mortality rates according to the adjustment methods agreed for 43.8% to 74.6% of patients. In all types of resections, the APR-DRGs and Disease Staging algorithms predicted in-hospital mortality better than the Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser indexes (P < .001). Compared with the Charlson/Deyo algorithm, the Elixhauser index was of higher accuracy in gastric resections (0.847 vs 0.792), hepatic resections (0.810 vs 0.757), and pancreatic resections (0.811 vs 0.741) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Higher accuracy of the Elixhauser algorithm compared with the Charlson/Deyo algorithm was not affected by diagnosis rank, multiple surgeries, or exclusion of transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Different comorbidity algorithms were validated in the surgical setting. The Disease Staging and APR-DRGs algorithms were highly accurate. For commonly used algorithms such as Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser, the latter showed higher accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Charlson/Deyo, Elixhauser, Disease Staging, and All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups (APR-DRGs) algorithms for predicting in-hospital mortality after 3 types of major abdominal surgeries: gastric, hepatic, and pancreatic resections. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide sample. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2007. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥18 years) hospitalized with a primary or secondary procedure of gastric, hepatic, or pancreatic resection between 2002 and 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predicting in-hospital mortality using the 4 comorbidity algorithms. Logistic regression analyses were used and C statistics were calculated to assess the performance of the indexes. Risk adjustment methods were then compared. RESULTS: In our study, we identified 46,395 gastric resections, 18,234 hepatic resections, and 15,443 pancreatic resections. Predicted in-hospital mortality rates according to the adjustment methods agreed for 43.8% to 74.6% of patients. In all types of resections, the APR-DRGs and Disease Staging algorithms predicted in-hospital mortality better than the Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser indexes (P < .001). Compared with the Charlson/Deyo algorithm, the Elixhauser index was of higher accuracy in gastric resections (0.847 vs 0.792), hepatic resections (0.810 vs 0.757), and pancreatic resections (0.811 vs 0.741) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Higher accuracy of the Elixhauser algorithm compared with the Charlson/Deyo algorithm was not affected by diagnosis rank, multiple surgeries, or exclusion of transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Different comorbidity algorithms were validated in the surgical setting. The Disease Staging and APR-DRGs algorithms were highly accurate. For commonly used algorithms such as Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser, the latter showed higher accuracy.
Authors: Hak Jin Kim; Eun Jeong Cho; Mi Hyang Kwak; Bang Wool Eom; Hong Man Yoon; Soo-Jeong Cho; Jong Yeul Lee; Chan Gyoo Kim; Keun Won Ryu; Young-Woo Kim; Il Ju Choi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rohan Khera; Ambarish Pandey; Thomas Koshy; Colby Ayers; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Sandeep R Das; Mark H Drazner; Michael E Jessen; Ajay J Kirtane; Timothy J Gardner; James A de Lemos; Deepak L Bhatt; Dharam J Kumbhani Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Christopher C Stahl; Patrick B Schwartz; Glen E Leverson; James R Barrett; Taylor Aiken; Alexandra W Acher; Sean M Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Rebecca M Minter; Sharon M Weber; Daniel E Abbott Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Juul J W Tegels; Michiel F G De Maat; Karel W E Hulsewé; Anton G M Hoofwijk; Jan H M B Stoot Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Raphael C Sun; Anna M Button; Brian J Smith; Richard F Leblond; James R Howe; James J Mezhir Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jin Hee Shin; Mathias Worni; Anthony W Castleberry; Ricardo Pietrobon; Philip A Omotosho; Mina Silberberg; Truls Østbye Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: C Ansorge; P Lindström; L Strömmer; J Blomberg; L Lundell; A Andrén-Sandberg; M Del Chiaro; R Segersvärd Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Dominick V Congiusta; Kamil M Amer; Katie Otero; Michael Metrione; Aziz M Merchant; Michael Vosbikian; Ifran Ahmed Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-12-03