Dataset Information

External validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) in 3305 abdominal surgery patients in the independent sector in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Assessing the risk of post-surgical mortality is a key component of pre-surgical planning. The Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) uses pre-operative variables to predict 30-day mortality. The aim of this study was to externally validate SORT in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Methods

Data were collected from patients treated in five independent hospitals in the UK. Individualised SORT scores were calculated, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and precision-recall curves (PRC) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were drawn to test the ability of SORT to identify in-hospital death. Outcomes of patients with a SORT predicted risk of mortality of ? 5% (high risk) were compared to those with a predicted risk of < 5% (standard risk).

Results

The study population comprised 3305 patients, mean age 51?years, 2783 (84.2%) underwent elective surgery most frequently involving the colon (24.6%), or liver, pancreas or gallbladder (18.2%). Overall, 1551 (46.9%) patients were admitted to ICU and 29 (0.88%) died. The AUROC of SORT for discriminating patients at risk of death in hospital was 0.899 (95% CI 0.849 to 0.949) and the PRC 0.247. In total, 72 (2.18%) patients were stratified as high risk. There were more unplanned ICU admissions and deaths in this group compared to the standard risk group (25.0% and 3.3%, versus 3.1% and 0.5%, respectively).

Conclusion

We externally validated SORT in a large population of abdominal surgery patients. SORT performed well in patients with lower risk profiles, but underpredicted adverse outcomes in the higher risk group.

SUBMITTER: Oakland K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7836595 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) in 3305 abdominal surgery patients in the independent sector in the UK.

Oakland K K Cosentino D D Cross T T Bucknall C C Dorudi S S Walker D D

Perioperative medicine (London, England) 20210126 1

<h4>Background</h4>Assessing the risk of post-surgical mortality is a key component of pre-surgical planning. The Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) uses pre-operative variables to predict 30-day mortality. The aim of this study was to externally validate SORT in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were collected from patients treated in five independent hospitals in the UK. Individualised SORT scores were calculated, and area under the receiver operating characterist ...[more]

PMID: 33494817

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number of older patients with multiple comorbidities in the emergency service is increasingly frequent, which implies the risk of incurring in futile surgical interventions. Some interventions generate false expectations of survival or quality of life in patients and families and represent a negligible therapeutic benefit in patients whose chances of survival are minimal. In order to address this dilemma, we describe mortality in a cohort of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy with a risk ≥ 75% per the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.MethodsA retrospective observational study was designed to analyze postoperative mortality and factors associated with postoperative mortality in a cohort of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy between January 2018 and December 2021 in a high-complexity hospital who had a mortality risk ≥ 75% per the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.ResultsA total of 890 emergency laparotomies were performed during the study period, and 50 patients were included for the analysis. Patient median age was 82.5 (IQR: 18.25) years old and 33 (66.00%) were male. The most frequent diagnoses were mesenteric ischemia 21 (42%) and secondary peritonitis 18 (36%). Mortality in the series was 92%. Twenty-four (54.34%) died within the first 24 h of the postoperative period; 11 (23.91%) within 72 h and 10 (21.73%) within 30 days. APACHE II and SOFA scores were statistically significantly higher in patients who died.ConclusionsAll available tools should be used to make decisions, with the most reliable and objective information possible, and be particularly vigilant in patients at extreme risk (mortality risk greater than 75% according to ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator) to avoid futility and its consequences. The available information should be shared with the patient, the family, or their guardians through an assertive and empathetic communication strategy. It is necessary to insist on a culture of surgical ethics based on reflection and continuous improvement in patient care and to know how to accompany them in order to have a proper death.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections (SSIs) are highly prevalent in abdominal surgery despite evidence-based prevention measures. Since guidelines are not self-implementing and SSI-preventive compliance is often insufficient, implementation interventions have been developed to promote compliance. This systematic review aims to identify implementation interventions used in abdominal surgery to prevent SSIs and determine associations with SSI reductions. METHODS:Literature was searched in April 2018 (Medline/PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection). Implementation interventions were classified using the implementation subcategories of the EPOC Taxonomy (Cochrane Review Group Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, EPOC). Additionally, an effectiveness analysis was conducted on the association between the number of implementation interventions, specific compositions thereof, and absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. RESULTS:Forty studies were included. Implementation interventions used most frequently ("top five") were audit and feedback (80% of studies), organizational culture (70%), monitoring the performance of healthcare delivery (65%), reminders (53%), and educational meetings (45%). Twenty-nine studies (72.5%) used a multimodal strategy (?3 interventions). An effectiveness analysis revealed significant absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. E.g., numerically, the largest absolute risk reduction of 10.8% pertained to thirteen studies using 3-5 interventions (p?<?.001); however, this was from a higher baseline rate than those with fewer or more interventions. The largest relative risk reduction was 52.4% for studies employing the top five interventions, compared to 43.1% for those not including these. Furthermore, neither the differences in risk reduction between studies with different numbers of implementation interventions (bundle size) nor between studies including the top five interventions (vs. not) were significant. CONCLUSION:In SSI prevention in abdominal surgery, mostly standard bundles of implementation interventions are applied. While an effectiveness analysis of differences in SSI risk reduction by number and type of interventions did not render conclusive results, use of standard interventions such as audit and feedback, organizational culture, monitoring, reminders, and education at least does not seem to represent preventive malpractice. Further research should determine implementation interventions, or bundles thereof, which are most effective in promoting compliance with SSI-preventive measures in abdominal surgery.

Project description:Cirrhosis poses an increased risk of postoperative mortality, yet it remains challenging to accurately risk stratify patients in clinical practice. The VOCAL-Penn cirrhosis surgical risk score was recently developed and internally validated in the national Veterans Affairs health system; however, to date this score has not been evaluated in independent cohorts. The goal of this study was to compare the predictive performance of the VOCAL-Penn to the Mayo risk, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) scores in 2 large health systems. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surgical procedures of interest at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center or University of Pennsylvania Health System from January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2015. The outcomes of interest were 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality. Concordance statistics (C-statistics), calibration curves, Brier scores, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA) were compared for each predictive model. A total of 855 surgical procedures were identified. The VOCAL-Penn score had the numerically highest C-statistic for 90-day postoperative mortality (eg, 0.82 versus 0.79 Mayo versus 0.78 MELD-Na versus 0.79 MELD), although differences were not statistically significant. Calibrations were excellent for the VOCAL-Penn, MELD, and MELD-Na; however, the Mayo score consistently overestimated risk. The VOCAL-Penn had the lowest Brier score and highest IPA at both time points, suggesting superior overall predictive model performance. In subgroup analyses of patients with higher MELD scores, the VOCAL-Penn had significantly higher C-statistics compared with the MELD and MELD-Na. The VOCAL-Penn score (www.vocalpennscore.com) has excellent discrimination and calibration for postoperative mortality among diverse patients with cirrhosis. Overall performance is superior to the Mayo, MELD, and MELD-Na scores. In contrast to the MELD/MELD-Na, the VOCAL-Penn retains excellent discrimination among patients with higher MELD scores.

Dataset Information

External validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) in 3305 abdominal surgery patients in the independent sector in the UK.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

External validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) in 3305 abdominal surgery patients in the independent sector in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets