South East Wales Vascular Network, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK.
Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Br J Surg. 2022 Nov 22;109(12):1300-1311. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac309.
The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery.
The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance.
Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679).
Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.
医疗保健专业人员(HCP)和风险预测工具预测重大下肢截肢(MLLA)后结果的准确性尚不确定。本研究的目的是评估预测短期(MLLA 后 30 天)死亡率、发病率和翻修手术的准确性。
PERCEIVE(预测风险和沟通下肢截肢后的结果:协作)研究于 2020 年 10 月 1 日启动。这是一项国际多中心研究,包括因外周动脉疾病和/或糖尿病并发症而行 MLLA 的成年人。记录了外科医生和麻醉师对 30 天死亡率、发病率和 MLLA 翻修的术前预测。计算了相关风险预测工具的概率。准确性评估包括区分度、校准和整体性能的衡量标准。
共纳入 537 例患者。HCP 预测死亡率(931 次预测;C 统计量 0.758)和 MLLA 翻修(565 次预测;C 统计量 0.756)的区分度尚可,但预测发病率(980 次预测;C 统计量 0.616)较差。他们高估了所有结果的风险。除了三种风险预测工具外,所有工具预测死亡率的区分度均不如 HCP(C 统计量分别为 0.789、0.774 和 0.773);其中两种与 HCP 相比显著高估了风险。纳入 HCP 预测结果的 SORT 版本 2(唯一一种工具)在校准和整体性能(Brier 评分 0.082)方面优于 HCP。预测发病率和 MLLA 翻修的工具区分度较差(C 统计量分别为 0.520 和 0.679)。
临床医生对死亡率和 MLLA 翻修的预测较好,但对发病率的预测较差。他们高估了死亡率、发病率和 MLLA 翻修的风险。大多数短期风险预测工具的区分度或校准度均不如 HCP。预测死亡率的最佳方法是一种纳入 HCP 估计的统计工具。