OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of functionally dependent patients who undergo major general or vascular surgery and to determine the relationship between functional health status and early postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: In contrast to frailty, functional health status is a relatively easy entity to define and to measure and therefore may be a more practical variable to assess in patients who are being considered for major surgery. To date, few studies have assessed the impact of functional health status on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing 1 of 10 complex general or vascular operations were extracted from the 2005 to 2010 America College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Propensity score techniques were used to match patients with and without preoperative functional dependency on known patient- and procedure-related factors. The postoperative outcomes of this matched cohort were then compared. RESULTS: A total of 10,246 functionally dependent surgical patients were included for analysis. These patients were more acutely and chronically ill than functionally independent patients, and they had higher rates of mortality and morbidity for each of the 10 procedures analyzed. Propensity-matching techniques resulted in the creation of a cohort of functionally independent and dependent patients who were well matched for known patient- and procedure-related variables. Dependent patients from the matched cohort had a 1.75-fold greater odds of postoperative death (95% confidence interval: 1.54-1.98, P < 0.0001) than functionally independent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative functional dependency is an independent risk factor for mortality after major operation. Functional health status should be routinely assessed in patients who are being considered for complex surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of functionally dependent patients who undergo major general or vascular surgery and to determine the relationship between functional health status and early postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: In contrast to frailty, functional health status is a relatively easy entity to define and to measure and therefore may be a more practical variable to assess in patients who are being considered for major surgery. To date, few studies have assessed the impact of functional health status on surgical outcomes. METHODS:Patients undergoing 1 of 10 complex general or vascular operations were extracted from the 2005 to 2010 America College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Propensity score techniques were used to match patients with and without preoperative functional dependency on known patient- and procedure-related factors. The postoperative outcomes of this matched cohort were then compared. RESULTS: A total of 10,246 functionally dependent surgical patients were included for analysis. These patients were more acutely and chronically ill than functionally independent patients, and they had higher rates of mortality and morbidity for each of the 10 procedures analyzed. Propensity-matching techniques resulted in the creation of a cohort of functionally independent and dependent patients who were well matched for known patient- and procedure-related variables. Dependent patients from the matched cohort had a 1.75-fold greater odds of postoperative death (95% confidence interval: 1.54-1.98, P < 0.0001) than functionally independent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative functional dependency is an independent risk factor for mortality after major operation. Functional health status should be routinely assessed in patients who are being considered for complex surgery.
Authors: Linda P Fried; Luigi Ferrucci; Jonathan Darer; Jeff D Williamson; Gerard Anderson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Siri R Kristjansson; Arild Nesbakken; Marit S Jordhøy; Eva Skovlund; Riccardo A Audisio; Hans-Olaf Johannessen; Arne Bakka; Torgeir B Wyller Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Thomas M Gill; Dorothy I Baker; Margaret Gottschalk; Peter N Peduzzi; Heather Allore; Peter H Van Ness Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Thomas M Gill; Dorothy I Baker; Margaret Gottschalk; Peter N Peduzzi; Heather Allore; Amy Byers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rebecca K Marcus; Heather A Lillemoe; David C Rice; Gabriel Mena; Brian K Bednarski; Barbra B Speer; Pedro T Ramirez; Javier D Lasala; Neema Navai; Wendell H Williams; Bradford J Kim; Rachel K Voss; Vijaya N Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Deborah J Culley; Devon Flaherty; Margaret C Fahey; James L Rudolph; Houman Javedan; Chuan-Chin Huang; John Wright; Angela M Bader; Bradley T Hyman; Deborah Blacker; Gregory Crosby Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Amir Fathi; Kathleen K Christians; Ben George; Paul S Ritch; Beth A Erickson; Parag Tolat; Fabian M Johnston; Douglas B Evans; Susan Tsai Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Cynthia Stretch; Jean-Michel Aubin; Beata Mickiewicz; Derek Leugner; Tariq Al-Manasra; Elizabeth Tobola; Santiago Salazar; Francis R Sutherland; Chad G Ball; Elijah Dixon; Hans J Vogel; Sambasivario Damaraju; Vickie E Baracos; Oliver F Bathe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.240