NELA Risk Calculator Significantly Underestimates Mortality Risk of Laparotomy for Mesenteric and Colonic Ischaemia in Older Adult Surgical Patients

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Open Access Surgery Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.2147/oas.s401635
Louis Connell
{"title":"NELA Risk Calculator Significantly Underestimates Mortality Risk of Laparotomy for Mesenteric and Colonic Ischaemia in Older Adult Surgical Patients","authors":"Louis Connell","doi":"10.2147/oas.s401635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To establish if the NELA risk calculator underestimates mortality risk in older adults undergoing laparotomy for mesenteric or colonic ischaemia. Methods: A retrospective search of the operative database was performed for all patients over age 65 years who underwent laparotomy across two tertiary centres over a 3-year period. Cases of mesenteric or colonic ischaemia were identified from the operative records. Cases where ischaemia occurred secondarily to a primary obstructive or other pathology were excluded. Cases where a NELA score was not documented preoperatively were excluded. We then compared the NELA scores to the observed 30-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and intensive care unit length of stay. Results: Sixty cases were included in our analysis. There were 27 cases of colonic ischaemia and 33 cases of mesenteric ischaemia (mesenteric ischaemia group included five cases of distal small-bowel and colonic ischaemia). The overall mean NELA score was 21.9%, while the actual 30-day mortality was 43.3% ( p =0.0094). Mean NELA score for mesenteric ischaemia cases only was 20.6% with an actual mortality rate of 45.5%. Mean NELA score for the colonic ischaemia cases was 23.5% with an actual mortality rate of 40.7%. The median time from operation to mortality was 8 days. Mean age was 77 years. Length of stay for survivors was a mean 27 days with intensive care unit length of stay of 9.3 days. Conclusion: The NELA risk score for mortality post–emergency laparotomy underestimates mortality risk by a factor of two in older adults where the primary pathology is mesenteric or colonic ischaemia.","PeriodicalId":56363,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/oas.s401635","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: 0

Abstract

Aim: To establish if the NELA risk calculator underestimates mortality risk in older adults undergoing laparotomy for mesenteric or colonic ischaemia. Methods: A retrospective search of the operative database was performed for all patients over age 65 years who underwent laparotomy across two tertiary centres over a 3-year period. Cases of mesenteric or colonic ischaemia were identified from the operative records. Cases where ischaemia occurred secondarily to a primary obstructive or other pathology were excluded. Cases where a NELA score was not documented preoperatively were excluded. We then compared the NELA scores to the observed 30-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and intensive care unit length of stay. Results: Sixty cases were included in our analysis. There were 27 cases of colonic ischaemia and 33 cases of mesenteric ischaemia (mesenteric ischaemia group included five cases of distal small-bowel and colonic ischaemia). The overall mean NELA score was 21.9%, while the actual 30-day mortality was 43.3% ( p =0.0094). Mean NELA score for mesenteric ischaemia cases only was 20.6% with an actual mortality rate of 45.5%. Mean NELA score for the colonic ischaemia cases was 23.5% with an actual mortality rate of 40.7%. The median time from operation to mortality was 8 days. Mean age was 77 years. Length of stay for survivors was a mean 27 days with intensive care unit length of stay of 9.3 days. Conclusion: The NELA risk score for mortality post–emergency laparotomy underestimates mortality risk by a factor of two in older adults where the primary pathology is mesenteric or colonic ischaemia.
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
NELA风险计算器显著低估了高龄手术患者肠系膜和结肠缺血剖腹手术的死亡风险
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Access Surgery is an international, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that focuses on all aspects of surgical procedures and interventions. Patient care around the peri-operative period and patient outcomes post surgery are key topics for the journal. All grades of surgery from minor cosmetic interventions to major surgical procedures will be covered. Novel techniques and the utilization of new instruments and materials, including implants and prostheses that optimize outcomes constitute major areas of interest. Contributions regarding patient satisfaction, preference, quality of life, and their role in optimizing new surgical procedures will be welcomed. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of case reports, clinical studies, reviews and original research.
期刊最新文献
Affinity of Colonic Granular Cell Tumor Within the Right Colon: Case Report and Review of Literature Rare Classic Presentation of Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Case Report and Literature Review Treatment Outcomes of Non-Traumatic Acute Abdomen and Its Associated Factors in Adult Patients at Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study Cecal Volvulus in Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Dilemma and Management: A Case Report and Literature Review Appendicitis During Pregnancy: Best Surgical Practices and Clinical Management
×
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