Risk Stratification Tools for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Adult Patients Undergoing Major Surgery

Author:

Moonesinghe Suneetha Ramani1,Mythen Michael G.2,Das Priya3,Rowan Kathryn M.4,Grocott Michael P. W.5

Affiliation:

1. Director, University College London, University College London Hospitals’ Surgical Outcomes Research Center, London, United Kingdom; Honorary Senior Lecturer, University College London; and Consultant, Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University College Hospital.

2. Professor, Smiths Medical Professor of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University College London; and Honorary Consultant, Anaesthesia, University College Hospital.

3. Research Fellow, University College London, University College London Hospitals’ Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University College Hospital.

4. Professor and Director, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Center, London, United Kingdom.

5. Professor of Critical Care Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Honorary Consultant, Critical Care, Southampton University Hospital; and Director, National Institute for Academic Anaesthesia’s Health Services Research Center, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Abstract Risk stratification is essential for both clinical risk prediction and comparative audit. There are a variety of risk stratification tools available for use in major noncardiac surgery, but their discrimination and calibration have not previously been systematically reviewed in heterogeneous patient cohorts. Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 1, 1980 and August 6, 2011 in adult patients undergoing major noncardiac, nonneurological surgery. Twenty-seven studies evaluating 34 risk stratification tools were identified which met inclusion criteria. The Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and the Surgical Risk Scale were demonstrated to be the most consistently accurate tools that have been validated in multiple studies; however, both have limitations. Future work should focus on further evaluation of these and other parsimonious risk predictors, including validation in international cohorts. There is also a need for studies examining the impact that the use of these tools has on clinical decision making and patient outcome.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3