The CELIOtomy Risk Score: An effort to minimize futile surgery with analysis of early postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy

Low mortality rate after emergency laparotomy in Australia is a reflection of its national surgical mortality audit influencing futile surgery

BACKGROUND

Australia's unique national surgical mortality audit has had a long-term focus on the avoidance of futile surgery. The 30-day mortality rate after emergency laparotomy in Australia is lower than in other countries. Early death (within 72 h) after emergency laparotomy may reflect futile surgery. This paper considers whether Australia's national mortality audit is the reason for its lower mortality rate after emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Australia and New Zealand Emergency Laparotomy Audit-Quality Improvement (ANZELA-QI) from 2018 to 2022. The time elapsed from emergency laparotomy to death was determined for each patient. The cumulative daily mortality rate was calculated for the first 30 days and expressed as a proportion of all emergency laparotomies, and 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Mortality data were compared with those in the only three similar overseas studies. The mortality rate after emergency laparotomy for patients who required but did not undergo surgery was calculated for each hospital. The proportion of patients with high-risk characteristics was compared with that in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA).

RESULTS

Compared with overseas studies, there was a lower early (within 72 h) mortality rate in ANZELA-QI. Although the lower mortality rate in ANZELA-QI persisted to 30 days, there was a relative increase after 14 days that likely reflected known poor compliance with care standards. Australian patients had fewer high-risk characteristics than those in NELA.

CONCLUSION

The present findings support the hypothesis that the lower mortality rate after emergency laparotomy in Australia is likely a consequence of its national mortality audit and the avoidance of futile surgery.

Quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy: an exploration of early-postoperative death in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

BACKGROUND

Quantitative futility is an appraisal of the risk of failure of a treatment. For those who do not survive, a laparotomy has provided negligible therapeutic benefit and may represent a missed opportunity for palliation. The aim of this study was to define a timeframe for quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy and investigate predictors of futility using the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database.

METHODS

A two-stage methodology was used; stage one defined a timeframe for futility using an online survey and steering group discussion; stage two applied this definition to patients enrolled in NELA December 2013-December 2020 for analysis. Futility was defined as all-cause mortality within 3 days of emergency laparotomy. Baseline characteristics of this group were compared to all others. Multilevel logistic regression was carried out with potentially clinically important predictors defined a priori.

RESULTS

Quantitative futility occurred in 4% of patients (7442/180,987). Median age was 74 years (range 65-81 years). Median NELA risk score was 32.4% vs. 3.8% in the surviving cohort (p < 0.001). Early mortality patients more frequently presented with sepsis (p < 0.001). Significant predictors of futility included age, arterial lactate and cardiorespiratory co-morbidity. Frailty was associated with a 38% increased risk of early mortality (95% CI 1.22-1.55). Surgery for intestinal ischaemia was associated with a two times greater chance of futile surgery (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.50-2.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative futility after emergency laparotomy is associated with quantifiable risk factors available to decision-makers preoperatively. These findings should be incorporated qualitatively by the multidisciplinary team into shared decision-making discussions with extremely high-risk patients.

Surgical mortality in patients in extremis: futility in emergency abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The number of older patients with multiple comorbidities in the emergency service is increasingly frequent, which implies the risk of incurring in futile surgical interventions. Some interventions generate false expectations of survival or quality of life in patients and families and represent a negligible therapeutic benefit in patients whose chances of survival are minimal. In order to address this dilemma, we describe mortality in a cohort of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy with a risk ≥ 75% per the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was designed to analyze postoperative mortality and factors associated with postoperative mortality in a cohort of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy between January 2018 and December 2021 in a high-complexity hospital who had a mortality risk ≥ 75% per the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.

RESULTS

A total of 890 emergency laparotomies were performed during the study period, and 50 patients were included for the analysis. Patient median age was 82.5 (IQR: 18.25) years old and 33 (66.00%) were male. The most frequent diagnoses were mesenteric ischemia 21 (42%) and secondary peritonitis 18 (36%). Mortality in the series was 92%. Twenty-four (54.34%) died within the first 24 h of the postoperative period; 11 (23.91%) within 72 h and 10 (21.73%) within 30 days. APACHE II and SOFA scores were statistically significantly higher in patients who died.

CONCLUSIONS

All available tools should be used to make decisions, with the most reliable and objective information possible, and be particularly vigilant in patients at extreme risk (mortality risk greater than 75% according to ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator) to avoid futility and its consequences. The available information should be shared with the patient, the family, or their guardians through an assertive and empathetic communication strategy. It is necessary to insist on a culture of surgical ethics based on reflection and continuous improvement in patient care and to know how to accompany them in order to have a proper death.

Outcomes of emergency laparoscopy in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

This paper assessed the association between operative approach and postoperative in-hospital mortality in elderly patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy have high morbidity and mortality rates. One-third of patients requiring emergency surgery are over 75 years old, and their in-hospital mortality rate exceeds 17%. Fewer than 20% of emergency abdominal operations in the UK are attempted laparoscopically, and only 10% are completed laparoscopically. Little is known about how laparoscopic emergency surgery in the elderly might affect outcomes.

METHODS

An observational UK study was performed using the prospectively maintained National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database. Operative approach, NELA risk-prediction score and in-hospital mortality were recorded. The effect of operative approach on in-hospital mortality was analysed, both on a national basis and in a high-volume laparoscopic centre.

RESULTS

A total of 47,667 patients were included in the study, of whom 15,068 were over 75 years of age. Nationally, surgery was completed by the laparoscopic approach in 7.8% of patients aged over 75; both crude mortality (9.2%) and risk-adjusted mortality (7.1%) were significantly reduced (p<0.0001). In our unit, surgery was completed laparoscopically in 48.4% of patients aged over 75; both crude mortality (6.6%) and risk-adjusted mortality (3.3%) were significantly reduced (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy in emergency surgery has been shown in this study to significantly reduce in-hospital mortality in elderly patients and should be embraced in every centre dealing with emergency abdominal surgery.

The false dichotomy of surgical futility in the emergency laparotomy setting: scoping review

BACKGROUND

Futile is defined as 'the fact of having no effect or of achieving nothing'. Futility in medicine has been defined through seven guiding principles, which in the context of emergency surgery, have been relatively unexplored. This scoping review aimed to identify key concepts around surgical futility as it relates to emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, a scoping review was conducted. A search of the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed up until 1 November 2021 to identify literature relevant to the topic of futility in emergency laparotomy.

RESULTS

Three cohort studies were included in the analysis. A total of 105 157 patients were included, with 1114 patients reported as futile. All studies were recent (2019 to 2020) and focused on the principle of quantitative futility (assessment of the probability of death after surgery) within a timeline after surgery: two defining futility as death within 48 hours of surgery and one as death within 72 hours. In all cases this was derived from a survival histogram. Predictors of defined futile procedures included age, level of independence prior to admission, surgical pathology, serum creatinine, arterial lactate, and pH.

CONCLUSION

There remains a paucity of research defining, exploring, and analysing futile surgery in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. With limited published work focusing on quantitative futility and the binary outcome of death, research is urgently needed to explore all principles of futility, including the wishes of patients and their families.

Long-term Outcomes After Emergency Laparotomy: a Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a common surgical operation with poor outcomes. Patients undergoing EL are often frail and have chronic comorbidities, but studies focused on the long-term outcomes after EL are lacking. The aim of the present study was to examine the long-term mortality after EL.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study of 674 adults undergoing midline EL between May 2015 and December 2017. The follow-up lasted until September 2020. The primary outcome was 2-year mortality after surgery. The secondary outcome was factors associated with mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 554 (82%) patients survived > 90 days after EL and were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 120 (18%) died during the follow-up. The survivors were younger than the non-survivors (median [IQR] 64 [49-74] vs. 71 [63-80] years, p < 0.001). In a Cox regression model, death during follow-up was associated with longer duration of operation (OR 2.21 [95% CI 1.27-3.83]), higher ASA classification (OR 2.37 [1.15-4.88]), higher CCI score (OR 4.74 [3.15-7.14]), and postoperative medical complications (OR 1.61 [1.05-2.47]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-related factors, such as higher ASA classification and CCI score, were the most remarkable factors associated with poor long-term outcome and mortality after EL.

A national propensity score-matched analysis of emergency laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.

METHODS

Data for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5-14) versus 10 (7-18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.