Literature DB >> 26945154

Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS): II. Parsimonious Risk Models for Postoperative Adverse Outcomes Addressing Need for Laboratory Variables and Surgeon Specialty-specific Models.

Robert A Meguid1, Michael R Bronsert, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga, Karl E Hammermeister, William G Henderson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop parsimonious prediction models for postoperative mortality, overall morbidity, and 6 complication clusters applicable to a broad range of surgical operations in adult patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Quantitative risk assessment tools are not routinely used for preoperative patient assessment, shared decision making, informed consent, and preoperative patient optimization, likely due in part to the burden of data collection and the complexity of incorporation into routine surgical practice.
METHODS: Multivariable forward selection stepwise logistic regression analyses were used to develop predictive models for 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, and 6 postoperative complication clusters, using 40 preoperative variables from 2,275,240 surgical cases in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set, 2005 to 2012. For the mortality and overall morbidity outcomes, prediction models were compared with and without preoperative laboratory variables, and generic models (based on all of the data from 9 surgical specialties) were compared with specialty-specific models. In each model, the cumulative c-index was used to examine the contribution of each added predictor variable. C-indexes, Hosmer-Lemeshow analyses, and Brier scores were used to compare discrimination and calibration between models.
RESULTS: For the mortality and overall morbidity outcomes, the prediction models without the preoperative laboratory variables performed as well as the models with the laboratory variables, and the generic models performed as well as the specialty-specific models. The c-indexes were 0.938 for mortality, 0.810 for overall morbidity, and for the 6 complication clusters ranged from 0.757 for infectious to 0.897 for pulmonary complications. Across the 8 prediction models, the first 7 to 11 variables entered accounted for at least 99% of the c-index of the full model (using up to 28 nonlaboratory predictor variables).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it will be possible to develop parsimonious models to predict 8 important postoperative outcomes for a broad surgical population, without the need for surgeon specialty-specific models or inclusion of laboratory variables.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26945154     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  19 in total

1.  Frailty as a Risk Predictor of Morbidity and Mortality Following Liver Surgery.

Authors:  Faiz Gani; Marcelo Cerullo; Neda Amini; Stefan Buettner; Georgios A Margonis; Kazunari Sasaki; Yuhree Kim; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Can Machine Learning Methods Produce Accurate and Easy-to-use Prediction Models of 30-day Complications and Mortality After Knee or Hip Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Alex H S Harris; Alfred C Kuo; Yingjie Weng; Amber W Trickey; Thomas Bowe; Nicholas J Giori
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The independent effect of cancer on outcomes: a potential limitation of surgical risk prediction.

Authors:  Ira L Leeds; Joseph K Canner; Jonathan E Efron; Nita Ahuja; Elliott R Haut; Elizabeth C Wick; Fabian M Johnston
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.192

4.  Implementation of a machine learning application in preoperative risk assessment for hip repair surgery.

Authors:  Yu-Yu Li; Jhi-Joung Wang; Sheng-Han Huang; Chi-Lin Kuo; Jen-Yin Chen; Chung-Feng Liu; Chin-Chen Chu
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 2.376

5.  Use of the consolidated framework for implementation research to guide dissemination and implementation of new technologies in surgery.

Authors:  Anne C Lambert-Kerzner; Davis M Aasen; Douglas M Overbey; Laura J Damschroder; William G Henderson; Karl E Hammermeister; Michael R Bronsert; Robert A Meguid
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: A Practical Guide for Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

Authors:  Amelia Maiga; Farhood Farjah; Jeffrey Blume; Stephen Deppen; Valerie F Welty; Richard S D'Agostino; Graham A Colditz; Benjamin D Kozower; Eric L Grogan
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Performance Comparison Between SURPAS and ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator in Pulmonary Resection.

Authors:  Neel P Chudgar; Shi Yan; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Katherine D Gray; Daniela Molena; Tamar Nobel; Prasad S Adusumilli; Manjit Bains; Robert J Downey; James Huang; Bernard J Park; Gaetano Rocco; Valerie W Rusch; Smita Sihag; David R Jones; James M Isbell
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  CORR Insights®: How Accurate Are the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) Universal Calculators in Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Maria C Inacio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  External Validation of Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System in Pulmonary Resection.

Authors:  Neel P Chudgar; Shi Yan; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Katherine D Gray; Tamar Nobel; Daniela Molena; Smita Sihag; Matthew Bott; David R Jones; Valerie W Rusch; Gaetano Rocco; James M Isbell
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 5.102

10.  How Accurate Are the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) Universal Calculators in Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Amber W Trickey; Qian Ding; Alex H S Harris
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.755

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.