Cargando…

Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction techniques commonly used in liver surgery include the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). This study compares the utility of these techniques along with the number of segments res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ulyett, S., Shahtahmassebi, G., Aroori, S., Bowles, M. J., Briggs, C. D., Wiggans, M. G., Minto, G., Stell, D. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5702139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-017-0073-4
_version_ 1783281463904436224
author Ulyett, S.
Shahtahmassebi, G.
Aroori, S.
Bowles, M. J.
Briggs, C. D.
Wiggans, M. G.
Minto, G.
Stell, D. A.
author_facet Ulyett, S.
Shahtahmassebi, G.
Aroori, S.
Bowles, M. J.
Briggs, C. D.
Wiggans, M. G.
Minto, G.
Stell, D. A.
author_sort Ulyett, S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Risk prediction techniques commonly used in liver surgery include the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). This study compares the utility of these techniques along with the number of segments resected as predictive tools in liver surgery. METHODS: A review of a unit database of patients undergoing liver resection between February 2008 and January 2015 was undertaken. Patient demographics, ASA, CCI and CPET variables were recorded along with resection size. Clavien-Dindo grade III–V complications were used as a composite outcome in analyses. Association between predictive variables and outcome was assessed by univariate and multivariate techniques. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two resections in 168 patients were identified. Grade III–V complications occurred after 42 (24.4%) liver resections. In univariate analysis of CPET variables, ventilatory equivalents for CO(2) (VEqCO(2)) was associated with outcome. CCI score, but not ASA grade, was also associated with outcome. In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of developing grade III–V complications for incremental increases in VEqCO(2), CCI and number of liver segments resected were 1.09, 1.49 and 2.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Of the techniques evaluated, resection size provides the simplest and most discriminating predictor of significant complications following liver surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5702139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57021392017-12-04 Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection Ulyett, S. Shahtahmassebi, G. Aroori, S. Bowles, M. J. Briggs, C. D. Wiggans, M. G. Minto, G. Stell, D. A. Perioper Med (Lond) Research BACKGROUND: Risk prediction techniques commonly used in liver surgery include the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). This study compares the utility of these techniques along with the number of segments resected as predictive tools in liver surgery. METHODS: A review of a unit database of patients undergoing liver resection between February 2008 and January 2015 was undertaken. Patient demographics, ASA, CCI and CPET variables were recorded along with resection size. Clavien-Dindo grade III–V complications were used as a composite outcome in analyses. Association between predictive variables and outcome was assessed by univariate and multivariate techniques. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two resections in 168 patients were identified. Grade III–V complications occurred after 42 (24.4%) liver resections. In univariate analysis of CPET variables, ventilatory equivalents for CO(2) (VEqCO(2)) was associated with outcome. CCI score, but not ASA grade, was also associated with outcome. In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of developing grade III–V complications for incremental increases in VEqCO(2), CCI and number of liver segments resected were 1.09, 1.49 and 2.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Of the techniques evaluated, resection size provides the simplest and most discriminating predictor of significant complications following liver surgery. BioMed Central 2017-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5702139/ /pubmed/29204270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-017-0073-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Ulyett, S.
Shahtahmassebi, G.
Aroori, S.
Bowles, M. J.
Briggs, C. D.
Wiggans, M. G.
Minto, G.
Stell, D. A.
Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title_full Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title_fullStr Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title_short Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
title_sort comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5702139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-017-0073-4
work_keys_str_mv AT ulyetts comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT shahtahmassebig comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT arooris comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT bowlesmj comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT briggscd comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT wiggansmg comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT mintog comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection
AT stellda comparisonofriskscoringsystemsinthepredictionofoutcomeafterliverresection