Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on June 25, 2004
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aeh210
© 2004 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
93/3/393    most recent
aeh210v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Donati, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pietropaoli, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Donati, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pietropaoli, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Accepted April 30, 2004

Clinical Investigation

A new and feasible model for predicting operative risk

A. Donati 1*, M. Ruzzi 1, E. Adrario 1, P. Pelaia 1, F. Coluzzi 2, V. Gabbanelli 1, P. Pietropaoli 2

1 Department of Neuroscience, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, University 'La Sapienza', Rome, Italy

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: donati{at}indi.it.


  Abstract

Background. Although the POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity) score can be used to calculate operative risk, its complexity makes its use unfeasible in the immediate clinical setting. The aim of this study was to create a new model, based on ASA status, to predict mortality.

Methods. Data were collected in two hospitals. All types of surgery were included except for cardiac surgery and Caesarean delivery. Age, sex and preoperative information, including the presence of cardiocirculatory and/or lung disease, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, hepatic disease, cancer, Glasgow Coma Score, ASA grade, surgical diagnosis, severity of the procedure and type of surgery (elective, urgent or emergency), were recorded for each patient. The model was developed using a data set incorporating data from 1936 surgical patients, and validated using data from a further 1849 patients. Forward stepwise logistic regression was used to build the model. Goodness of fit was examined using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed on both data sets to test calibration and discrimination. In the validation data set, the new model was compared with POSSUM and P-POSSUM for both calibration and discrimination, and with ASA alone to compare discrimination.

Results. The following variables were included in the new model: ASA status, age, type of surgery (elective, urgent, emergency) and degree of surgery (minor, moderate or major). Calibration and discrimination of the new model were good in both development and validation data sets. This new model was better calibrated in the validation data set (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test: {chi}2=6.8017, P=0.7440) than either P-POSSUM ({chi}2=14.4643, P=0.1528) or POSSUM, which was not calibrated ({chi}2=31.8147, P=0.0004). POSSUM and P-POSSUM had better discrimination than the new model, although this was not statistically significant. Comparing the two ROCcurves, the new model had better discrimination than ASA alone (difference between areas, 0.077, SE 0.034, 95% confidence interval 0.012-0.143, P=0.021).

Conclusions. This new, ASAstatus-based model is simple to use and can be performed routinely in the operating room to predict operative risk for both elective and emergency surgery.

Keywords: assessment, perioperative; risk, operative; surgery, outcome.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
W. C. W. Chan, P. Musonda, A. S. Cooper, M. M. S. Glasgow, S. T. Donell, and N. P. Walton
One-stage versus two-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacement: A COMPARISON OF IMMEDIATE POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS
J Bone Joint Surg Br, October 1, 2009; 91-B(10): 1305 - 1309.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
M. J. Maxwell, C. G. Moran, and I. K. Moppett
Development and validation of a preoperative scoring system to predict 30 day mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery
Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2008; 101(4): 511 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
D. C. Brodbelt, D. U. Pfeiffer, L. E. Young, and J. L. N. Wood
Risk factors for anaesthetic-related death in cats: results from the confidential enquiry into perioperative small animal fatalities (CEPSAF)
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2007; 99(5): 617 - 623.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Capuzzo, G. Gilli, L. Paparella, G. Gritti, D. Gambi, M. Bianconi, F. Giunta, C. Buccoliero, and R. Alvisi
Factors Predictive of Patient Satisfaction with Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2007; 105(2): 435 - 442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
T. S. Ramanathan, I. K. Moppett, R. Wenn, and C. G. Moran
POSSUM scoring for patients with fractured neck of femur
Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2005; 94(4): 430 - 433.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.