Pre-operative evaluation using therapeutic intensity scoring

Development and Validation of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Postoperative Intensive Care Unit Stay in a Broad Surgical Population

IMPORTANCE

Despite limited capacity and expensive cost, there are minimal objective data to guide postoperative allocation of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) uses 8 preoperative variables to predict many common postoperative complications, but it has not yet been evaluated in predicting postoperative ICU admission.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the SURPAS model could accurately predict postoperative ICU admission in a broad surgical population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical model was a retrospective, observational analysis of prospectively collected patient data from the 2012 to 2018 American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, which were merged with individual patients' electronic health record data to capture postoperative ICU use. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to determine how the 8 preoperative variables of the SURPAS model predicted ICU use compared with a model inputting all 28 preoperatively available NSQIP variables. Data included in the analysis were collected for the ACS NSQIP at 5 hospitals (1 tertiary academic center, 4 academic affiliated hospitals) within the University of Colorado Health System between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018. Included patients were those undergoing surgery in 9 surgical specialties during the 2012 to 2018 period. Data were analyzed from May 29 to July 30, 2021.

EXPOSURE

Surgery in 9 surgical specialties, including general, gynecology, orthopedic, otolaryngology, plastic, thoracic, urology, vascular, and neurosurgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Use of ICU care up to 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 34 568 patients were included in the analytical data set: 32 032 (92.7%) in the cohort without postoperative ICU use and 2545 (7.4%) in the cohort with postoperative ICU use (no ICU use: mean [SD] age, 54.9 [16.6] years; 18 188 women [56.8%]; ICU use: mean [SD] age, 60.3 [15.3] years; 1333 men [52.4%]). For the internal chronologic validation of the 7-variable SURPAS model, data from 2012 to 2016 were used as the training data set (n = 24 250, 70.2% of the total sample size of 34 568) and data from 2017 to 2018 were used as the test data set (n = 10 318, 29.8% of the total sample size of 34 568). The C statistic improved in the test data set compared with the training data set (0.933; 95% CI, 0.924-0.941 vs 0.922; 95% CI, 0.917-0.928), whereas the Brier score was slightly worse in the test data set compared with the training data set (0.045; 95% CI, 0.042-0.048 vs 0.045; 95% CI, 0.043-0.047). The SURPAS model compared favorably with the model inputting all 28 NSQIP variables, with both having good calibration between observed and expected outcomes in the Hosmer-Lemeshow graphs and similar Brier scores (model inputting all variables, 0.044; 95% CI, 0.043-0.048; SURPAS model, 0.045; 95% CI, 0.042-0.046) and C statistics (model inputting all variables, 0.929; 95% CI, 0.925-0.934; SURPAS model, 0.925; 95% CI, 0.921-0.930).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this decision analytical model study revealed that the SURPAS prediction model accurately predicted postoperative ICU use across a diverse surgical population. These results suggest that the SURPAS prediction model can be used to help with preoperative planning and resource allocation of limited ICU beds.

The comparative and added prognostic value of biomarkers to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index for preoperative prediction of major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality in patients who undergo noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a widely acknowledged prognostic model to estimate preoperatively the probability of developing in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, the RCRI does not always make accurate predictions, so various studies have investigated whether biomarkers added to or compared with the RCRI could improve this.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: To investigate the added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Secondary: To investigate the prognostic value of biomarkers compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tertiary: To investigate the prognostic value of other prediction models compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 1999 (the year that the RCRI was published) until 25 June 2020. We also searched ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS for articles referring to the original RCRI development study in that period.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies among adults who underwent noncardiac surgery, reporting on (external) validation of the RCRI and: - the addition of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of the RCRI to other models. Besides MACE, all other adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We developed a data extraction form based on the CHARMS checklist. Independent pairs of authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability according to PROBAST. For biomarkers and prediction models that were added or compared to the RCRI in ≥ 3 different articles, we described study characteristics and findings in further detail. We did not apply GRADE as no guidance is available for prognostic model reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 3960 records and included 107 articles.   Over all objectives we rated risk of bias as high in ≥ 1 domain in 90% of included studies, particularly in the analysis domain. Statistical pooling or meta-analysis of reported results was impossible due to heterogeneity in various aspects: outcomes used, scale by which the biomarker was added/compared to the RCRI, prediction horizons and studied populations.  Added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI Fifty-one studies reported on the added value of biomarkers to the RCRI. Sixty-nine different predictors were identified derived from blood (29%), imaging (33%) or other sources (38%). Addition of NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination improved the RCRI for predicting MACE (median delta c-statistics: 0.08, 0.14 and 0.12 for NT-proBNP, troponin and their combination, respectively). The median total net reclassification index (NRI) was 0.16 and 0.74 after addition of troponin and NT-proBNP to the RCRI, respectively. Calibration was not reported. To predict myocardial infarction, the median delta c-statistic when NT-proBNP was added to the RCRI was 0.09, and 0.06 for prediction of all-cause mortality and MACE combined. For BNP and copeptin, data were not sufficient to provide results on their added predictive performance, for any of the outcomes. Comparison of the predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI  Fifty-one studies assessed the predictive performance of biomarkers alone compared to the RCRI. We identified 60 unique predictors derived from blood (38%), imaging (30%) or other sources, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (32%). Predictions were similar between the ASA classification and the RCRI for all studied outcomes. In studies different from those identified in objective 1, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 and 0.12 in favour of  BNP and NT-proBNP alone, respectively, when compared to the RCRI, for the prediction of MACE. For C-reactive protein, the predictive performance was similar to the RCRI. For other biomarkers and outcomes, data were insufficient to provide summary results. One study reported on calibration and none on reclassification. Comparison of the predictive value of other prognostic models to the RCRI   Fifty-two articles compared the predictive ability of the RCRI to other prognostic models. Of these, 42% developed a new prediction model, 22% updated the RCRI, or another prediction model, and 37% validated an existing prediction model. None of the other prediction models showed better performance in predicting MACE than the RCRI. To predict myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, ACS-NSQIP-MICA had a higher median delta c-statistic of 0.11 compared to the RCRI. To predict all-cause mortality, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 higher in favour of ACS-NSQIP-SRS compared to the RCRI. Predictive performance was not better for CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, R2CHADS2, Goldman index, Detsky index or VSG-CRI compared to the RCRI for any of the outcomes. Calibration and reclassification were reported in only one and three studies, respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies included in this review suggest that the predictive performance of the RCRI in predicting MACE is improved when NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination are added. Other studies indicate that BNP and NT-proBNP, when used in isolation, may even have a higher discriminative performance than the RCRI. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between the predictive accuracy of the RCRI and other prediction models in predicting MACE. However, ACS-NSQIP-MICA and ACS-NSQIP-SRS outperformed the RCRI in predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest combined, and all-cause mortality, respectively. Nevertheless, the results cannot be interpreted as conclusive due to high risks of bias in a majority of papers, and pooling was impossible due to heterogeneity in outcomes, prediction horizons, biomarkers and studied populations. Future research on the added prognostic value of biomarkers to existing prediction models should focus on biomarkers with good predictive accuracy in other settings (e.g. diagnosis of myocardial infarction) and identification of biomarkers from omics data. They should be compared to novel biomarkers with so far insufficient evidence compared to established ones, including NT-proBNP or troponins. Adherence to recent guidance for prediction model studies (e.g. TRIPOD; PROBAST) and use of standardised outcome definitions in primary studies is highly recommended to facilitate systematic review and meta-analyses in the future.