Basta Marten N, Fiadjoe John E, Woo Albert S, Peeples Kenneth N, Jackson Oksana A
1 Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
2 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018 Apr;55(4):574-581. doi: 10.1177/1055665617744065. Epub 2018 Jan 4.
This study aimed to identify risk factors for adverse perioperative events (APEs) after cleft palatoplasty to develop an individualized risk assessment tool.
Retrospective cohort.
Tertiary institutional.
Patients younger than 2 years with cleft palate.
Primary Furlow palatoplasty between 2008 and 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Adverse perioperative event, defined as laryngo- or bronchospasm, accidental extubation, reintubation, obstruction, hypoxia, or unplanned intensive care unit admission.
Three hundred patients averaging 12.3 months old were included. Cleft distribution included submucous, 1%; Veau 1, 17.3%; Veau 2, 38.3%; Veau 3, 30.3%; and Veau 4, 13.0%. Pierre Robin (n = 43) was the most prevalent syndrome/anomaly. Eighty-three percent of patients received reversal of neuromuscular blockade, and total morphine equivalent narcotic dose averaged 0.19 mg/kg. Sixty-nine patients (23.0%) had an APE, most commonly hypoventilation (10%) and airway obstruction (8%). Other APEs included reintubation (4.7%) and laryngobronchospasm (3.3%). APE was associated with multiple intubation attempts (odds ratio [OR] = 6.6, P = .001), structural or functional airway anomaly (OR = 4.5, P < .001), operation >160 minutes (OR = 2.2, P = .04), narcotic dose >0.3 mg/kg (OR = 2.3, P = .03), inexperienced provider (OR = 2.1, P = .02), and no paralytic reversal administration (OR = 2.0, P = .049); weight between 9 and 13 kg was protective (OR = 0.5, P = .04). Patients were risk-stratified according to individual profiles as low, average, high, or extreme risk (APE 2.5%-91.7%) with excellent risk discrimination (C-statistic = 0.79).
APE incidence was 23.0% after palatoplasty, with a 37-fold higher incidence in extreme-risk patients. Individualized risk assessment tools may enhance perioperative clinical decision making to mitigate complications.
本研究旨在确定腭裂修复术后围手术期不良事件(APE)的风险因素,以开发一种个性化的风险评估工具。
回顾性队列研究。
三级医疗机构。
2岁以下的腭裂患者。
2008年至2011年期间进行初次Furlow腭裂修复术。
围手术期不良事件,定义为喉痉挛或支气管痉挛、意外拔管、再次插管、梗阻、低氧血症或计划外入住重症监护病房。
纳入300例平均年龄为12.3个月的患者。腭裂类型分布包括黏膜下腭裂1%;韦氏1型17.3%;韦氏2型38.3%;韦氏3型30.3%;韦氏4型13.0%。皮埃尔·罗宾序列征(n = 43)是最常见的综合征/异常。83%的患者接受了神经肌肉阻滞逆转,吗啡等效总麻醉剂量平均为0.19 mg/kg。69例患者(23.0%)发生了围手术期不良事件,最常见的是通气不足(10%)和气道梗阻(8%)。其他围手术期不良事件包括再次插管(4.7%)和喉痉挛(3.3%)。围手术期不良事件与多次插管尝试(比值比[OR]=6.6,P = 0.001)、结构或功能性气道异常(OR = 4.5,P < 0.001)、手术时间>160分钟(OR = 2.2,P = 0.04)、麻醉剂量>0.3 mg/kg(OR = 2.3,P = 0.03)、经验不足的医护人员(OR = 2.1,P = 0.02)以及未给予麻痹逆转药物(OR = 2.0,P = 0.049)相关;体重在9至13 kg之间具有保护作用(OR = 0.5,P = 0.04)。根据个体情况将患者分为低、中、高或极高风险(围手术期不良事件发生率2.5%-91.7%),风险区分度良好(C统计量=0.79)。
腭裂修复术后围手术期不良事件发生率为23.0%,极高风险患者的发生率高出37倍。个性化风险评估工具可能会加强围手术期临床决策,以减少并发症。