Improvement of the Surgical Apgar Score by Addition of Intraoperative Blood Transfusion Among Patients Undergoing Major Gastrointestinal Surgery

Predicting outcomes in head and neck surgery with modified frailty index and surgical apgar scores

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the Modified Frailty Index and Modified Surgical Apgar scores in predicting postoperative outcomes in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent major head and neck surgery between 2012 and 2015. Modified Surgical Apgar, and Frailty Index, scores were calculated on 723 patients. The primary outcome was 30-day complication and/or mortality.

RESULTS

The mean Modified Frailty Index was 0.11 ± 0.12, and mean Modified Surgical Apgar score was 6.15 ± 1.67. Both scores were significantly associated with 30-day complication (P<0.05). The Modified Surgical Apgar score was superior to the Modified Frailty Index in predicting complications (Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.76; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI), 0.722-0.793; and AUC=0.59; 95 % CI, 0.548-0.633, respectively). Concurrent use of both scoring systems (AUC=0.77) was not superior to individual use. An increase in the mFI from 0.27 to 0.36 was associated with an increase in the risk of complication postoperatively (Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.67; 95 % CI, 1.30-10.34, P=.014). A reduction in the mSAS from 7 to 6 increased the risk of complication following surgery (OR=2.64; 95 % CI, 1.45-4.80; P=.002).

CONCLUSION

Both scores are useful in risk stratifying head and neck cancer patients. The Modified Surgical Apgar score was superior at predicting complications; concurrent use of both scores added minimal benefit.

Preoperative oral antibiotic administration in patients undergoing curative resection with stoma creation for colorectal cancer: effectiveness in preventing surgical site infection and the possibility of peristomal candidiasis induced by enterobacterial alteration

AIM

There are many reports that preoperative oral antibiotics (OAs) are effective in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in colorectal surgery. However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of OAs. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of OAs in preventing SSIs and the possibility that OAs induce enterobacterial alteration in the intestinal tract.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 389 patients who underwent R0 resection and stoma creation for colorectal cancer in our department between 2009 and 2020. We focused on the incidence of peristomal candidiasis (PSC) as an indicator of enterobacterial alteration and used kanamycin (KM) and metronidazole (MNZ) as the OAs. A low-dose group received 1000 mg/day of both KM and MNZ, and a high-dose group received 2000 mg/day of both KM and MNZ.

RESULTS

SSI occurred in 60 of the 389 cases (15.4%). Regardless of stoma type, SSI was significantly more common in the non-OA group, while PSC was significantly less common. When examined by OA dose, the incidence of SSI was not significantly different between the low-dose and high-dose groups. However, PSC was significantly more common in the high-dose group than in the non-OA and low-dose groups. Analysis of bacterial and fungal levels in stool samples showed that bacterial levels after OAs were significantly lower than before OAs, while fungal levels increased.

CONCLUSION

OAs significantly reduce SSI in colorectal cancer surgery. However, excess OAs were significantly associated with the occurrence of PSC without contributing to further reduction in SSI.

Implementation of the Surgical Apgar Score in Laboratory Animal Science: A Showcase Pilot Study in a Porcine Model and a Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

In an attempt to further improve surgical outcomes, a variety of outcome prediction and risk-assessment tools have been developed for the clinical setting. Risk scores such as the surgical Apgar score (SAS) hold promise to facilitate the objective assessment of perioperative risk related to comorbidities of the patients or the individual characteristics of the surgical procedure itself. Despite the large number of scoring models in clinical surgery, only very few of these models have ever been utilized in the setting of laboratory animal science. The SAS has been validated in various clinical surgical procedures and shown to be strongly associated with postoperative morbidity. In the present study, we aimed to review the clinical evidence supporting the use of the SAS system and performed a showcase pilot trial in a large animal model as the first implementation of a porcine-adapted SAS (pSAS) in an in vivo laboratory animal science setting.

METHODS

A literature review was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases. Study characteristics and results using the SAS were reported. For the in vivo study, 21 female German landrace pigs have been used either to study bleeding analogy (n = 9) or to apply pSAS after abdominal surgery in a kidney transplant model (n = 12). The SAS was calculated using 3 criteria: (1) estimated blood loss during surgery; (2) lowest mean arterial blood pressure; and (3) lowest heart rate.

RESULTS

The SAS has been verified to be an effective tool in numerous clinical studies of abdominal surgery, regardless of specialization confirming independence on the type of surgical field or the choice of surgery. Thresholds for blood loss assessment were species specifically adjusted to >700 mL = score 0; 700-400 mL = score 1; 400-55 mL score 2; and <55 mL = score 3 resulting in a species-specific pSAS for a more precise classification.

CONCLUSION

Our literature review demonstrates the feasibility and excellent performance of the SAS in various clinical settings. Within this pilot study, we could demonstrate the usefulness of the modified SAS (pSAS) in a porcine kidney transplantation model. The SAS has a potential to facilitate early veterinary intervention and drive the perioperative care in large animal models exemplified in a case study using pigs. Further larger studies are warranted to validate our findings.

The Surgical Apgar Score: A Systematic Review of Its Discriminatory Performance

To review the current literature evaluating the performance of the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS).

Background

The SAS is a simple metric calculated at the end of surgery that provides clinicians with information about a patient's postoperative risk of morbidity and mortality. The SAS differs from other prognostic models in that it is calculated from intraoperative rather than preoperative parameters. The SAS was originally derived and validated in a general and vascular surgery population. Since its inception, it has been evaluated in many other surgical disciplines, large heterogeneous surgical populations, and various countries.

Methods

A database and gray literature search was performed on March 3, 2020. Identified articles were reviewed for applicability and study quality with prespecified inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and quality requirements. Thirty-six observational studies are included for review. Data were systematically extracted and tabulated independently and in duplicate by two investigators with differences resolved by consensus.

Results

All 36 included studies reported metrics of discrimination. When using the SAS to correctly identify postoperative morbidity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or concordance-statistic ranged from 0.59 in a general orthopedic surgery population to 0.872 in an orthopedic spine surgery population. When using the SAS to identify mortality, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or concordance-statistic ranged from 0.63 in a combined surgical population to 0.92 in a general and vascular surgery population.

Conclusions

The SAS provides a moderate and consistent degree of discrimination for postoperative morbidity and mortality across multiple surgical disciplines.

Antithrombotic drugs have a minimal effect on intraoperative blood loss during emergency surgery for generalized peritonitis: a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Japan

Background

The effect of antithrombotic drugs on intraoperative operative blood loss volume in patients undergoing emergency surgery for generalized peritonitis is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of antithrombotic drugs on intraoperative blood loss in patients with generalized peritonitis using a nationwide surgical registry in Japan.

Method

This retrospective cohort study used a nationwide surgical registry data from 2011 to 2017 in Japan. Propensity score matching for the use of antithrombotic drugs was used for the adjustment of age, gender, comorbidities, frailty, preoperative state, types of surgery, surgical approach, laboratory data, and others. The main outcome was intraoperative blood loss: comparison of intraoperative blood loss, ratio of intraoperative blood loss after adjusted for confounding factors, and variable importance of all covariates.

Results

A total of 70,105 of the eligible 75,666 patients were included in this study, and 2947 patients were taking antithrombotic drugs. Propensity score matching yielded 2864 well-balanced pairs. The blood loss volume was slightly higher in the antithrombotic drug group (100 [10–349] vs 70 [10–299] ml). After adjustment for confounding factors, the use of antithrombotic drugs was related to a 1.30-fold increase in intraoperative blood loss compared to non-use of antithrombotic drugs (95% CI, 1.16–1.45). The variable importance revealed that the effect of the use of antithrombotic drugs was minimal compared with surgical approach or type of surgery.

Conclusion

This study shows that while taking antithrombotic drugs is associated with a slight increase in intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing emergency surgery for generalized peritonitis, the effect is likely of minimal clinical significance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00374-z.

Antithrombotic drugs do not increase intraoperative blood loss in emergency gastrointestinal surgery: a single-institution propensity score analysis

Background

The use of antithrombotic drugs is increasing with the aging population. Prior to elective procedures, antithrombotic drugs are often discontinued. For emergency procedures in patients taking antithrombotic drugs, their effect cannot be attenuated which may lead to an increased risk of hemorrhagic events. However, there are few studies showing increased intraoperative blood loss in patients taking antithrombotic drugs who undergo emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of antithrombotic agents increases intraoperative blood loss in emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery between January 2013 and December 2017 was conducted. The primary outcome measure was intraoperative blood loss. Patients were divided into the antithrombotic drug group and a control group, and a propensity score was developed using multivariate logistic regression. We use 1:1 propensity score matching analysis to compare outcomes between the two groups.

Results

Of 1555 patients included in this study, 1184 patients, including 170 patients taking antithrombotic drugs, were eligible for propensity score matching analysis. A 1:1 matching yielded 117 well-balanced pairs. There was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (antithrombotic drug group vs control group, median (interquartile): 60 (225–10) vs 100 (243–10) ml, p = 0.43).

Conclusions

This study suggests that antithrombotic drugs do not increase intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery. Emergency gastrointestinal surgery for patients currently taking antithrombotic drugs can be performed safely, and the use of antithrombotic drugs is not a reason to delay surgical intervention.

A low surgical Apgar score is a predictor of anastomotic leakage after transthoracic esophagectomy, but not a prognostic factor

BACKGROUND

The surgical Apgar score (SAS) has been a useful predictor of postoperative complications in several types of cancer. However, there are few reports about the correlation of SAS and esophageal cancer. This study aimed to examine the utility of SAS as a predictor of major complications, particularly anastomotic leakage, in patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy, and investigate the correlation between SAS and patient prognosis.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. A total of 190 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in 2012-2016 were reviewed to find the correlation between SAS and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification III or higher). SAS was calculated based on intraoperative estimated blood loss, lowest mean arterial pressure, and lowest heart rate. Major complications included anastomotic leakage, respiratory, cardiac, recurrent nerve palsy, chylothorax, and other complications. We also reviewed how SAS was correlated with 3 year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). A high SAS was defined as ≥ 6, and a low SAS as < 6.

RESULTS

On univariate analysis, SAS showed a statistical significance in all major complications and anastomotic leakage. On multiple logistic regression analysis, a low SAS was detected as a risk factor of the major complications and anastomotic leakage, with a significant difference. Moreover, we conducted survival analysis with SAS; however, we could not detect that a low SAS had a negative impact on OS and RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

A low SAS can be a predictor of postoperative complications, especially anastomotic leakage. However, SAS was not correlated with OS or RFS.

Utility of the Modified Surgical Apgar Score in a Head and Neck Cancer Population

Objective The Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) is a validated postoperative complication prediction model. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of the SAS in a diverse head and neck cancer population and to compare it with a recently developed modified SAS (mSAS) that accounts for intraoperative transfusion. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Academic tertiary care medical center. Subjects and Methods This study comprised 713 patients undergoing surgery for head and neck cancer from April 2012 to March 2015. SAS values were calculated according to intraoperative data obtained from anesthesia records. The mSAS was computed by assigning an estimated blood loss score of zero for patients receiving intraoperative transfusions. Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. Results Mean SAS and mSAS were 6.3 ± 1.5 and 6.2 ± 1.7, respectively. SAS and mSAS were significantly associated with 30-day postoperative morbidity, length of stay, operative time, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, race, and body mass index ( P < .05); however, no significant association was detected for age, sex, and smoking status. Multivariable analysis identified SAS and mSAS as independent predictors of postoperative morbidity, with the mSAS ( P = .03) being a more robust predictor than the SAS ( P = .15). Strong inverse relationships were demonstrated for the SAS and mSAS with length of stay and operative time ( P < .0001). Conclusion The SAS serves as a useful metric for risk stratification of patients with head and neck cancer. With the inclusion of intraoperative transfusion, the mSAS demonstrates superior utility in predicting those at risk for postoperative complications.

The Reliability of Surgical Apgar Score in Predicting Immediate and Late Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality: A Narrative Review

Surgical Apgar Score is a simple, 10-point scoring system in which a low score reliably identifies those patients at risk for adverse perioperative outcomes. Surgical techniques and anesthesia management should be directed in such a way that the Surgical Apgar Score remains higher to avoid postoperative morbidity and mortality.