Oliver C M, Walker E, Giannaris S, Grocott M P W, Moonesinghe S R
UCL/UCLH Surgical Outcome Research Centre (SOuRCe), 3rd Floor, Maples Link Corridor, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London NW1 2BU, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia Health Services Research Centre, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK Centre for Anaesthesia, University College London, London, UK
UCL/UCLH Surgical Outcome Research Centre (SOuRCe), 3rd Floor, Maples Link Corridor, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London NW1 2BU, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia Health Services Research Centre, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK Centre for Anaesthesia, University College London, London, UK.
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):849-60. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev350. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
Emergency laparotomies are performed commonly throughout the world, but one in six patients die within a month of surgery. Current international initiatives to reduce the considerable associated morbidity and mortality are founded upon delivering individualised perioperative care. However, while the identification of high-risk patients requires the routine assessment of individual risk, no method of doing so has been demonstrated to be practical and reliable across the commonly encountered spectrum of presentations, co-morbidities and operative procedures. A systematic review of Embase and Medline identified 20 validation studies assessing 25 risk assessment tools in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The most frequently studied general tools were APACHE II, ASA-PS and P-POSSUM. Comparative, quantitative analysis of tool performance was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of study design, poor reporting and infrequent within-study statistical comparison of tool performance. Reporting of calibration was notably absent in many prognostic tool validation studies. APACHE II demonstrated the most consistent discrimination of individual outcome across a variety of patient groups undergoing emergency laparotomy when used either preoperatively or postoperatively (area under the curve 0.76-0.98). While APACHE systems were designed for use in critical care, the ability of APACHE II to generate individual risk estimates from objective, exclusively preoperative data items may lead to better-informed shared decisions, triage and perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Future endeavours should include the recalibration of APACHE II and P-POSSUM in contemporary cohorts, modifications to enable prediction of morbidity and assessment of the impact of adoption of these tools on clinical practice and patient outcomes.
急诊剖腹手术在全球范围内普遍开展,但每六名患者中就有一人在术后一个月内死亡。当前国际上旨在降低与之相关的高发病率和死亡率的举措基于提供个性化的围手术期护理。然而,虽然识别高危患者需要对个体风险进行常规评估,但在常见的临床表现、合并症和手术操作范围内,尚无一种方法被证明既实用又可靠。对Embase和Medline进行的系统综述确定了20项验证研究,评估了25种用于急诊剖腹手术患者的风险评估工具。研究最频繁的通用工具是急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级(ASA-PS)和手术预后和手术严重性评分系统(P-POSSUM)。由于研究设计的异质性、报告不佳以及研究中工具性能的统计比较不频繁,对工具性能进行比较性定量分析不可行。许多预后工具验证研究中明显缺乏校准报告。当在术前或术后使用时,APACHE II在各种接受急诊剖腹手术的患者群体中对个体结局的区分最为一致(曲线下面积为0.76 - 0.98)。虽然APACHE系统是为重症监护设计的,但APACHE II能够根据客观的、仅术前的数据项生成个体风险估计值,这可能会为急诊剖腹手术患者带来更明智的共同决策、分诊和围手术期管理。未来的努力应包括在当代队列中对APACHE II和P-POSSUM进行重新校准,进行修改以实现发病率预测,并评估采用这些工具对临床实践和患者结局的影响。