ICARUS Classification System Working Groupe . Assessing, grading, and reporting intraoperative adverse events during and after surgery

Impact of intraoperative adverse events in general and gastrointestinal surgery: A nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) during general surgery can lead to significant morbidity and healthcare burden, yet their impact remains underexplored. We aimed to estimate the nationwide incidence of iAEs in general surgery and explore their associations with mortality, complications, length of stay, and costs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2019 and included adult patients (aged 18 years and older) who underwent general surgical procedures. Eligible patients were grouped based on the presence of an iAE, defined as an unrecognized abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while secondary outcomes included 30-day post-operative complications, length of stay, and total inpatient costs. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to examine the association between the presence of an iAE and post-operative outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 701,866 patients were included. The mean age was 55.1 years, and 60.0 ​% were female. 6350 (0.9 ​%) experienced an iAE. The procedure with the highest incidence of iAE was small bowel resection (2.3 ​%). On univariate analysis, patients who experienced an iAE had higher mortality (3.8 ​% vs. 1.5 ​%, P ​< ​0.001), 30-day complications, length of stay, and inpatient costs. After multivariable regression, iAEs were independently associated with an increase in in-hospital mortality, length of stay, unplanned readmission, wound complications, acute kidney injury, sepsis, surgical site infection, ileus, and inpatient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their low incidence, iAEs are associated with heightened rates of complications and healthcare utilization. Incorporating iAEs into surgical quality initiatives and developing iAE reporting standards is warranted.

Study protocol for the Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) global cross-specialty surveys and consensus

Annually, about 300 million surgeries lead to significant intraoperative adverse events (iAEs), impacting patients and surgeons. Their full extent is underestimated due to flawed assessment and reporting methods. Inconsistent adoption of new grading systems and a lack of standardization, along with litigation concerns, contribute to underreporting. Only half of relevant journals provide guidelines on reporting these events, with a lack of standards in surgical literature. To address these issues, the Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standard (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration was established in 2022. The initiative involves conducting global surveys and a Delphi consensus to understand the barriers for poor reporting of iAEs, validate shared criteria for reporting, define iAEs according to surgical procedures, evaluate the existing grading systems' reliability, and identify strategies for enhancing the collection, reporting, and management of iAEs. Invitation to participate are extended to all the surgical specialties, interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, OR Staffs and anesthesiology. This effort represents an essential step towards improved patient safety and the well-being of healthcare professionals in the surgical field.

Risk Prediction Models for Peri-Operative Mortality in Patients Undergoing Major Vascular Surgery with Particular Focus on Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The present scoping review aims to describe and analyze available clinical data on the most commonly reported risk prediction indices in vascular surgery for perioperative mortality, with a particular focus on ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review following the PRISMA Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews was performed. Available full-text studies published in English in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases (last queried, 30 March 2023) were systematically reviewed and analyzed. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework used to construct the search strings was the following: in patients with aortic pathologies, in particular rAAA (population), undergoing open or endovascular surgery (intervention), what different risk prediction models exist (comparison), and how well do they predict post-operative mortality (outcomes)?

RESULTS

The literature search and screening of all relevant abstracts revealed a total of 56 studies in the final qualitative synthesis. The main findings of the scoping review, grouped by the risk score that was investigated in the original studies, were synthetized without performing any formal meta-analysis. A total of nine risk scores for major vascular surgery or elective AAA, and 10 scores focusing on rAAA, were identified. Whilst there were several validation studies suggesting that most risk scores performed adequately in the setting of rAAA, none reached 100% accuracy. The Glasgow aneurysm score, ERAS and Vancouver score risk scores were more frequently included in validation studies and were more often used in secondary studies. Unfortunately, the published literature presents a heterogenicity of results in the validation studies comparing the different risk scores. To date, no risk score has been endorsed by any of the vascular surgery societies.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of risk scores in any complex surgery can have multiple advantages, especially when dealing with emergent cases, since they can inform perioperative decision making, patient and family discussions, and post hoc case-mix adjustments. Although a variety of different rAAA risk prediction tools have been published to date, none are superior to others based on this review. The heterogeneity of the variables used in the different scores impairs comparative analysis which represents a major limitation to understanding which risk score may be the "best" in contemporary practice. Future developments in artificial intelligence may further assist surgical decision making in predicting post-operative adverse events.

Association of the classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra) with complications and neurological outcome after neurosurgical procedures: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To analyze the reliability of the classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra) to reflect intraoperative complications of neurosurgical procedures and the potential to predict the postoperative outcome including the neurological performance. The ClassIntra classification was recently introduced and found to be reliable for assessing intraoperative adverse events and predicting postoperative complications across different surgical disciplines. Nevertheless, its potential role for neurosurgical procedures remains elusive.

METHODS

This is a prospective, monocentric cohort study assessing the ClassIntra in 422 adult patients who underwent a neurosurgical procedure and were hospitalized between July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraoperative complications graded according to ClassIntra and the association with postoperative outcome reflected by the Clavien-Dindo classification and comprehensive complication index (CCI). The ClassIntra is defined as intraoperative adverse events as any deviation from the ideal course on a grading scale from grade 0 (no deviation) to grade V (intraoperative death) and was set at sign-out in agreement between neurosurgeon and anesthesiologist. Secondary outcomes were the neurological outcome after surgery as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), modified Rankin scale (mRS), Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale, National Institute Health of Strokes Scale (NIHSS), and Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), and need for unscheduled brain scan.

RESULTS

Of 442 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [16.2]; 235 [55.7%] women and 187 [44.3%] men) who underwent a neurosurgical procedure, 169 (40.0%) patients had an intraoperative adverse event (iAE) classified as ClassIntra I or higher. The NIHSS score at admission (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63, female gender (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.84), extracranial procedures (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), and emergency cases (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.53-3.78) were independent risk factors for a more severe iAE. A ClassIntra ≥ II was associated with increased odds of postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo (p < 0.01), neurological deterioration at discharge (p < 0.01), prolonged hospital (p < 0.01), and ICU stay (p < 0.01). For elective craniotomies, severity of ClassIntra was associated with the CCI (p < 0.01) and need for unscheduled CT or MRI scan (p < 0.01). The proportion of a ClassIntra ≥ II was significantly higher for emergent craniotomies (56.2%) and associated with in-hospital mortality, and an unfavorable neurological outcome (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Findings of this study suggest that the ClassIntra is sensitive for assessing intraoperative adverse events and sufficient to identify patients with a higher risk for developing postoperative complications after a neurosurgical procedure.

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting

BACKGROUND

Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures.

RESULTS

Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.

Assessment and Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events and Complications in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma, Vulvar Cancer, and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) plays a crucial role in the oncological management of patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer. This study aims to systematically evaluate perioperative adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing ILND and its reporting.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were queried to identify studies discussing perioperative AEs in patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer following ILND.

RESULTS

Our search generated 3.469 publications, with 296 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Details of 14.421 patients were analyzed. Of these studies, 58 (19.5%) described intraoperative AEs (iAEs) as an outcome of interest. Overall, 68 (2.9%) patients reported at least one iAE. Postoperative AEs were reported in 278 studies, combining data on 10.898 patients. Overall, 5.748 (52.7%) patients documented ≥1 postoperative AEs. The most reported ILND-related AEs were lymphatic AEs, with a total of 4.055 (38.8%) events. The pooled meta-analysis confirmed that high BMI (RR 1.09; p = 0.006), ≥1 comorbidities (RR 1.79; p = 0.01), and diabetes (RR 1.81; p =  < 0.00001) are independent predictors for any AEs after ILND. When assessing the quality of the AEs reporting, we found 25% of studies reported at least 50% of the required criteria.

CONCLUSION

ILND performed in melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer patients is a morbid procedure. The quality of the AEs reporting is suboptimal. A more standardized AEs reporting system is needed to produce comparable data across studies for furthering the development of strategies to decrease AEs.