BACKGROUND: Contemporary liver surgery practice must accurately assess operative risk in increasingly elderly populations with greater co-morbidity. This study evaluated preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in high-risk patients undergoing hepatic resection. METHODS: In a prospective cohort referred for liver resection, patients aged over 65 years (or younger with co-morbidity) were evaluated by preoperative CPET. Data were collected prospectively on functional status, postoperative complications and survival. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients were assessed for hepatic resection, of whom 108 had preoperative CPET. An anaerobic threshold (AT) of 9·9 ml O(2) per kg per min predicted in-hospital death and subsequent survival. Below this value, AT was 100 per cent sensitive and 76 per cent specific for in-hospital mortality, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 19 per cent and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100 per cent: no deaths occurred above the threshold. Age and respiratory efficiency in the elimination of carbon dioxide (VE/VCO(2)) at AT were statistically significant predictors of postoperative complications. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that a threshold of 34·5 for VE/VCO(2) at AT provided a specificity of 84 per cent and a sensitivity of 47 per cent, with a PPV of 76 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 58 to 88) per cent and a NPV of 60 (48 to 72) per cent for postoperative complications. Long-term survival of those with an AT of less than 9·9 ml O(2) per kg per min was significantly worse than that of patients with a higher AT (hazard ratio for mortality 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·04 to 3·17; P = 0·036). CONCLUSION: CPET provides a useful prognostic adjunct in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing hepatic resection.
BACKGROUND: Contemporary liver surgery practice must accurately assess operative risk in increasingly elderly populations with greater co-morbidity. This study evaluated preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in high-risk patients undergoing hepatic resection. METHODS: In a prospective cohort referred for liver resection, patients aged over 65 years (or younger with co-morbidity) were evaluated by preoperative CPET. Data were collected prospectively on functional status, postoperative complications and survival. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients were assessed for hepatic resection, of whom 108 had preoperative CPET. An anaerobic threshold (AT) of 9·9 ml O(2) per kg per min predicted in-hospital death and subsequent survival. Below this value, AT was 100 per cent sensitive and 76 per cent specific for in-hospital mortality, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 19 per cent and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100 per cent: no deaths occurred above the threshold. Age and respiratory efficiency in the elimination of carbon dioxide (VE/VCO(2)) at AT were statistically significant predictors of postoperative complications. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that a threshold of 34·5 for VE/VCO(2) at AT provided a specificity of 84 per cent and a sensitivity of 47 per cent, with a PPV of 76 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 58 to 88) per cent and a NPV of 60 (48 to 72) per cent for postoperative complications. Long-term survival of those with an AT of less than 9·9 ml O(2) per kg per min was significantly worse than that of patients with a higher AT (hazard ratio for mortality 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·04 to 3·17; P = 0·036). CONCLUSION: CPET provides a useful prognostic adjunct in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing hepatic resection.
Authors: Lee A Fleisher; Kirsten E Fleischmann; Andrew D Auerbach; Susan A Barnason; Joshua A Beckman; Biykem Bozkurt; Victor G Davila-Roman; Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Thomas A Holly; Garvan C Kane; Joseph E Marine; M Timothy Nelson; Crystal C Spencer; Annemarie Thompson; Henry H Ting; Barry F Uretsky; Duminda N Wijeysundera Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: D Pfirrmann; P Simon; M Mehdorn; M Hänsig; S Stehr; L Selig; A Weimann; M Knödler; F Lordick; A Mehnert; I Gockel Journal: Chirurg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Ramanathan Kasivisvanathan; Nima Abbassi-Ghadi; Andrew D M McLeod; Alex Oliver; Ravishankar Rao Baikady; Shaman Jhanji; Stephen Cone; Timothy Wigmore Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mariëlle M E Coolsen; Maikel Bakens; Ronald M van Dam; Steven W M Olde Damink; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ajith K Siriwardena; James M Mason; Saifee Mullamitha; Helen C Hancock; Santhalingam Jegatheeswaran Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 66.675