Literature DB >> 24615608

An efficient risk adjustment model to predict inpatient adverse events after surgery.

Jamie E Anderson1, John Rose, Abraham Noorbakhsh, Mark A Talamini, Samuel R G Finlayson, Stephen W Bickler, David C Chang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment is an important component of surgical outcomes and quality analyses. Current models include numerous preoperative variables; however, the relative contribution of these variables may be limited. This research seeks to identify a model with the fewest number of variables necessary to perform an adequate risk adjustment to predict any inpatient adverse event for use in resource-limited settings.
METHODS: All patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2010 were included. Outcomes were inpatient mortality or any surgical complication captured by NSQIP. Models were built by sequential addition of preoperative risk variables selected by their area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: Among 863,349 patients, the single variable with the highest AUC was American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (AUC = 0.7127). AUC values reached 0.7923 with five variables (ASA classification, wound classification, functional status prior to surgery, albumin, and age) and 0.7945 with six variables. The sixth variable was one of the following: alkaline phosphatase, weight loss, principal anesthesia technique, gender, or emergency status. The model with the highest discrimination that did not require laboratories included ASA classification, functional status prior to surgery, wound classification, and age (AUC = 0.7810). Including all 66 preoperative variables produced little additional gain (AUC = 0.8006).
CONCLUSIONS: Six variables are sufficient to develop a risk adjustment tool for inpatient surgical mortality and morbidity. This research has important implications for the field of surgical outcomes research by improving efficiency of data collection. This limited model can aid the expansion of risk-adjusted analyses to resource-limited settings worldwide.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24615608      PMCID: PMC6384506          DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2490-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  16 in total

1.  A comparison of the abilities of nine scoring algorithms in predicting mortality.

Authors:  J Wayne Meredith; Gregory Evans; Patrick D Kilgo; Ellen MacKenzie; Turner Osler; Gerald McGwin; Stephen Cohn; Thomas Esposito; Thomas Gennarelli; Michael Hawkins; Charles Lucas; Charles Mock; Michael Rotondo; Loring Rue; Howard R Champion
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2002-10

2.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative morbidity rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.

Authors:  J Daley; S F Khuri; W Henderson; K Hur; J O Gibbs; G Barbour; J Demakis; G Irvin; J F Stremple; F Grover; G McDonald; E Passaro; P J Fabri; J Spencer; K Hammermeister; J B Aust; C Oprian
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 3.  Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; David M Shahian; Justin B Dimick; Samuel R G Finlayson; David R Flum; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce Lee Hall
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data.

Authors:  Thomas G Weiser; Scott E Regenbogen; Katherine D Thompson; Alex B Haynes; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry; Atul A Gawande
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed?

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Nicholas H Osborne; Bruce L Hall; Clifford Y Ko; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Predicting Surgical Risk: How Much Data is Enough?

Authors:  Ilan Rubinfeld; Maria Farooq; Vic Velanovich; Zeeshan Syed
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2010-11-13

7.  Preoperative functional status predicts perioperative outcomes after infrainguinal bypass surgery.

Authors:  Robert S Crawford; Richard P Cambria; Christopher J Abularrage; Mark F Conrad; Robert T Lancaster; Michael T Watkins; Glenn M LaMuraglia
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor.

Authors:  C Healey; Turner M Osler; Frederick B Rogers; Mark A Healey; Laurent G Glance; Patrick D Kilgo; Steven R Shackford; J Wayne Meredith
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2003-04

9.  Brief tool to measure risk-adjusted surgical outcomes in resource-limited hospitals.

Authors:  Jamie E Anderson; Randi Lassiter; Stephen W Bickler; Mark A Talamini; David C Chang
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2012-09

10.  Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves.

Authors:  Viv Bewick; Liz Cheek; Jonathan Ball
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2004-11-04       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  12 in total

1.  Universities form research partnership to improve care in Mozambique.

Authors:  John Rose; Peter Bendix; Carlos Funzamo; Fernando Vaz; Antonio Assis da Costa; Stephen Bickler; Emilia Virginia Noormahomed
Journal:  Bull Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-01

2.  Emergent Surgery Does Not Independently Predict 30-Day Mortality After Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: Results from the ACS NSQIP Database.

Authors:  Toms Augustin; Eric Schneider; Diya Alaedeen; Matthew Kroh; Ali Aminian; David Reznick; Matthew Walsh; Stacy Brethauer
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Data Improvement Through Simplification: Implications for Low-Resource Settings.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Anderson; Jordan Bohnen; Richard Spence; Lenka Ilcisin; Karim Ladha; David Chang
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Validation of an Electronic Surgical Outcomes Database at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, Uganda.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Anderson; Lenka Ilcisin; Joseph Ngonzi; Stephen Ttendo; Deus Twesigye; Noralis Portal Benitez; Paul Firth; Deepika Nehra
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Epidemiology and mortality of pediatric surgical conditions: insights from a tertiary center in Uganda.

Authors:  Maija Cheung; Nasser Kakembo; Nensi Rizgar; David Grabski; Sarah Ullrich; Arlene Muzira; Phyllis Kisa; John Sekabira; Doruk Ozgediz
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Creating an inexpensive hospital-wide surgical complication register for performance monitoring: a cohort study.

Authors:  Ira H Saarinen; Antti Malmivaara; Heini Huhtala; Antti Kaipia
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2022-07

7.  Assessment of Surgical Care Provided in National Health Services Hospitals in Mozambique: The Importance of Subnational Metrics in Global Surgery.

Authors:  Matchecane Cossa; John Rose; Allison E Berndtson; Emilia Noormahomed; Stephen W Bickler
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-01-31       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Short and Long-Term Outcomes After Surgical Procedures Lasting for More Than Six Hours.

Authors:  Natalia Cornellà; Joan Sancho; Antonio Sitges-Serra
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Arsenic level in toenails is associated with hearing loss in humans.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Nobutaka Ohgami; Ichiro Yajima; Huadong Xu; Machiko Iida; Reina Oshino; Hiromasa Ninomiya; Dandan Shen; Nazmul Ahsan; Anwarul Azim Akhand; Masashi Kato
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  How Do Complications Within the First 30 days after Spinal Deformity Surgery in Children with Cerebral Palsy Affect Length of Stay?

Authors:  Annabel Dekker; Haemish A Crawford; N Susan Stott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.755

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.