Emergency General Surgery: Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in the Geriatric Population.

IF 0.8 Q4 SURGERY Surgery Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1756461
Abubaker Elamin, Panagiotis Tsoutsanis, Laith Sinan, Seyedh Paniz Hashemi Tari, Wafa Elamin, Hayato Kurihara
{"title":"Emergency General Surgery: Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in the Geriatric Population.","authors":"Abubaker Elamin,&nbsp;Panagiotis Tsoutsanis,&nbsp;Laith Sinan,&nbsp;Seyedh Paniz Hashemi Tari,&nbsp;Wafa Elamin,&nbsp;Hayato Kurihara","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Numerous scoring systems have been created to predict the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). In this article, we compared the different scoring systems utilized at Humanitas Research Hospital and analyzed which one performed the best when assessing geriatric patients (>65 years of age). The scoring systems that were utilized were the APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists), ACS-NSQIP (American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Clinical Frailty Score, and the Clavien-Dindo classification as control. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  We compiled a database consisting of all patients over the age of 65 who underwent EGS in a consecutive 24-month period between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. We used the biostatistical program \"Stata Version 15\" to analyze our results. <b>Results</b>  We found 213 patients who matched our inclusion criteria. Regarding death, we found that the ACS-NSQIP death calculator performed the best with an area under the curve of 0.9017 (odds ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.12). The APACHE II score had the lowest discriminator when predicting death. Considering short-term complications, the Clavien-Dindo classification scored highly, while both the APACHE II score and Clinical Frailty Score produced the lowest results. <b>Conclusion</b>  The results obtained from our research showed that scoring systems and classifications produced different results depending on whether they were used to predict deaths or short-term complications among geriatric patients undergoing EGS.</p>","PeriodicalId":44614,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512589/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction  Numerous scoring systems have been created to predict the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). In this article, we compared the different scoring systems utilized at Humanitas Research Hospital and analyzed which one performed the best when assessing geriatric patients (>65 years of age). The scoring systems that were utilized were the APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists), ACS-NSQIP (American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Clinical Frailty Score, and the Clavien-Dindo classification as control. Materials and Methods  We compiled a database consisting of all patients over the age of 65 who underwent EGS in a consecutive 24-month period between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. We used the biostatistical program "Stata Version 15" to analyze our results. Results  We found 213 patients who matched our inclusion criteria. Regarding death, we found that the ACS-NSQIP death calculator performed the best with an area under the curve of 0.9017 (odds ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.12). The APACHE II score had the lowest discriminator when predicting death. Considering short-term complications, the Clavien-Dindo classification scored highly, while both the APACHE II score and Clinical Frailty Score produced the lowest results. Conclusion  The results obtained from our research showed that scoring systems and classifications produced different results depending on whether they were used to predict deaths or short-term complications among geriatric patients undergoing EGS.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊普通外科:预测老年人群的发病率和死亡率。
许多评分系统被用来预测急诊普外科(EGS)患者的发病和死亡风险。在本文中,我们比较了Humanitas Research Hospital使用的不同评分系统,并分析了哪一种评分系统在评估老年患者(>65岁)时表现最好。使用的评分系统为APACHE II(急性生理和慢性健康评估II)、ASA(美国麻醉医师学会)、ACS-NSQIP(美国外科医师学会-国家手术质量改进计划)、临床虚弱评分和Clavien-Dindo分类作为对照。材料和方法我们编制了一个数据库,包括2017年1月1日至2018年12月31日连续24个月期间接受EGS治疗的所有65岁以上患者。我们使用生物统计程序“Stata Version 15”来分析我们的结果。结果213例患者符合纳入标准。在死亡方面,我们发现ACS-NSQIP死亡计算器表现最好,曲线下面积为0.9017(优势比:1.09;95%置信区间:1.06-1.12)。APACHE II评分在预测死亡时具有最低的判别性。考虑到短期并发症,Clavien-Dindo评分较高,而APACHE II评分和临床虚弱评分均最低。结论我们的研究结果表明,评分系统和分类是否用于预测老年EGS患者的死亡或短期并发症,会产生不同的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Surgery Journal
Surgery Journal SURGERY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pattern of Surgical Diseases Affecting Females in a Teaching Hospital in Central India: A Demographic Study. Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection following Blunt Trauma: A Case Report. Reconstruction of Upper and Lower Limb Defects with Medial Sural Artery Perforator Flaps: Is Aesthetics Worth the Effort? A Retrospective Analysis. Delayed Primary Repair of Complex Duodenal Injury Associated to Multiorgan Failure Due to Blunt Abdominal Trauma. Treatment of Aneurysmal Bone Cyst with Endoscopic Resection and Bone Allograft with Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1