Vashistha Nitin, Singhal Siddharth, Budhiraja Sandeep, Singhal Dinesh
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Clinical Directorate, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.
J Minim Access Surg. 2024 Apr 1;20(2):142-147. doi: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_187_22. Epub 2022 Sep 12.
Several risk calculating tools have been introduced into clinical practice to provide patients and clinicians with objective, individualised estimates of procedure-related unfavourable outcomes. The currently available risk calculators (RCs) have been developed by well-endowed health systems in Europe and the USA. Applicability of these RCs in low-middle income country (LMIC) settings with wide disparities in patient population, surgical practice and healthcare infrastructure has not been adequately examined.
Through this single tertiary care, LMIC-centre, retrospective cohort study, we investigated the accuracy of the two most widely validated RCs - American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) RC and ColoRectal Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM) - for the prediction of mortality in patients undergoing elective and emergency colorectal surgery (CRS) from March 2013 to March 2020. Online RCs were used to predict mortality and other outcomes. Accuracy was assessed by Brier score and C statistic.
Of 105 patients, 69 (65.71%) underwent elective and 36 (34.28%) underwent emergency CRS. The 30-day overall mortality was 12 - elective 1 (1.4%) and emergency 11 (30.5%). ACS-NSQIP RC performed better for the prediction of overall ( C statistic 0.939, Brier score 0.065) and emergency ( C statistic 0.840, Brier score 0.152) mortality. However, for elective CRS mortality, Brier scores were similar for both models (0.014), whereas C statistic (0.934 vs. 0.890) value was better for ACS-NSQIP.
Both ACS-NSQIP and CR-POSSUM were accurate for the prediction of CRS mortality. However, compared to CR-POSSUM, ACS-NSQIP performed better. The overall performance of both models is indicative of their wider applicability in LMIC centres also.
几种风险计算工具已被引入临床实践,为患者和临床医生提供与手术相关的不良结局的客观、个性化估计。目前可用的风险计算器(RCs)是由欧美资金雄厚的卫生系统开发的。这些RCs在患者人群、手术实践和医疗基础设施存在巨大差异的中低收入国家(LMIC)环境中的适用性尚未得到充分检验。
通过这项单一的三级医疗、以LMIC为中心的回顾性队列研究,我们调查了两种最广泛验证的RCs——美国外科医师学会-国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)RC和结直肠生理和手术严重程度评分以计算死亡率和发病率(CR-POSSUM)——对2013年3月至2020年3月接受择期和急诊结直肠手术(CRS)患者死亡率的预测准确性。使用在线RCs预测死亡率和其他结局。通过Brier评分和C统计量评估准确性。
105例患者中,69例(65.71%)接受择期CRS,36例(34.28%)接受急诊CRS。30天总死亡率为12例——择期1例(1.4%),急诊11例(30.5%)。ACS-NSQIP RC在预测总死亡率(C统计量0.939,Brier评分0.065)和急诊死亡率(C统计量0.840,Brier评分0.152)方面表现更好。然而,对于择期CRS死亡率,两种模型的Brier评分相似(0.014),而ACS-NSQIP的C统计量值(0.934对0.890)更好。
ACS-NSQIP和CR-POSSUM在预测CRS死亡率方面都很准确。然而,与CR-POSSUM相比,ACS-NSQIP表现更好。两种模型的总体表现表明它们在LMIC中心也具有更广泛的适用性。