Risk factors for mortality after emergency laparotomy: scoping systematic review

Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for serious complications after emergency laparotomy

PURPOSE

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a common operation with high risk for postoperative complications, thereby requiring accurate risk stratification to manage vulnerable patients optimally. We developed and internally validated a predictive model of serious complications after EL.

METHODS

Data for eleven carefully selected candidate predictors of 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >  = 3) were extracted from the HELAS cohort of EL patients in 11 centres in Greece and Cyprus. Logistic regression with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) was applied for model development. Discrimination and calibration measures were estimated and clinical utility was explored with decision curve analysis (DCA). Reproducibility and heterogeneity were examined with Bootstrap-based internal validation and Internal-External Cross-Validation. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program's (ACS-NSQIP) model was applied to the same cohort to establish a benchmark for the new model.

RESULTS

From data on 633 eligible patients (175 complication events), the SErious complications After Laparotomy (SEAL) model was developed with 6 predictors (preoperative albumin, blood urea nitrogen, American Society of Anaesthesiology score, sepsis or septic shock, dependent functional status, and ascites). SEAL had good discriminative ability (optimism-corrected c-statistic: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.81), calibration (optimism-corrected calibration slope: 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.03) and overall fit (scaled Brier score: 25.1%, 95% CI 24.1-26.1%). SEAL compared favourably with ACS-NSQIP in all metrics, including DCA across multiple risk thresholds.

CONCLUSION

SEAL is a simple and promising model for individualized risk predictions of serious complications after EL. Future external validations should appraise SEAL's transportability across diverse settings.

Getting back 'home' after emergency laparotomy: how many never make it?

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is performed on about 15 500 patients in Australia each year. Aside from mortality there is significant concern about the possibility that previously independent patients discharged after EL will become reliant on long-term dependent care. This study aimed to establish the proportion of patients not returning to their pre-admission residence, a proxy for dependent care, following EL.

METHODS

Data were collected on all adult patients who underwent EL across four Australian hospitals over 2 years. A total of 113 data points were collected including pre-hospital residence, discharge destination, mortality and place of residence at 90 and 365 days.

RESULTS

A total of 782 patients underwent EL, the mean age was 64 years. Pre-admission, 95.5% of patients were living in their own home. Inpatient mortality was 7.0% and at discharge 72.4% of patients returned directly back to their pre-hospital residence. At 90 days, mortality was 10.5%, and 87% of patients had returned to their pre-hospital residence, including all patients under 70 years of age. By 365 days, overall mortality was 16.8%, and only 1.5% of patients (all aged >70 years) had not returned to their pre-hospital residence.

CONCLUSION

Patients who survive 90 and 365 days following EL nearly all return to their pre-hospital residence, with only a very small proportion of previously independent patients entering dependent care. This should help inform shared decision-making regarding emergency laparotomy in the acute setting.

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.

Poor outcomes in patients with sepsis undergoing emergency laparotomy and laparoscopy are attenuated by faster time to care measures

AIM

Emergency laparotomy and laparoscopy (EmLap) are amongst the commonest surgical procedures, with high prevalence of sepsis and hence poorer outcomes. However, whether time taken to receive care influences outcomes in patients requiring antibiotics for suspected infection remains largely unexplored. The aim of this work was to determine whether (1) time to care contributes to outcome differences between patients with and without suspected infection and (2) its impact on outcomes only amongst those with suspected infection.

METHOD

Clinical information was retrospectively obtained from the 2017-2018 Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit (ELLSA). Time to care referred to six temporal variables describing radiological investigation, anaesthetic triage and surgical management. Outcome measures [mortality, readmission, hospital death, postoperative destination and length of stay (LoS)] were compared using adjusted and unadjusted regression analyses to determine whether the outcome differences could be explained by faster or slower time to care.

RESULTS

Amongst 2243 EmLap patients [median age 65 years (interquartile range 51-75 years), 51.1% female], 892 (39.77%) received antibiotics for suspected infection. Although patients with suspected infection had faster time to care (all p ≤ 0.001) and worse outcomes compared with those who did not, outcome differences were not statistically significant when accounted for time (all p > 0.050). Amongst those who received antibiotics, faster time to care was also associated with decreased risk of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter LoS (all p < 0.050).

CONCLUSION

Worse outcomes associated with infection in EmLap patients were attenuated by faster time to care, which additionally reduced the LoS and ICU stay risk amongst those with suspected infection.

Standardized perioperative management in acute abdominal surgery: Swedish SMASH controlled study

BACKGROUND

Acute high-risk abdominal surgery is common, as are the attendant risks of organ failure, need for intensive care, mortality, or long hospital stay. This study assessed the implementation of standardized management.

METHODS

A prospective study of all adults undergoing emergency laparotomy over an interval of 42 months (2018-2021) was undertaken; outcomes were compared with those of a retrospective control group. A new standardized clinical protocol was activated for all patients including: prompt bedside physical assessment by the surgeon and anaesthetist, interprofessional communication regarding location of resuscitation, elimination of unnecessary factors that might delay surgery, improved operating theatre competence, regular epidural, enhanced recovery care, and frequent early warning scores. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were duration of hospital stay, need for intensive care, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 patients were included, 663 in the control group and 681 in the intervention group. The use of antibiotics increased (81.4 versus 94.7 per cent), and the time from the decision to operate to the start of surgery was reduced (3.80 versus 3.22 h) with use of the new protocol. Fewer anastomoses were performed (22.5 versus 16.8 per cent). The 30-day mortality rate was 14.5 per cent in the historical control group and 10.7 per cent in the intervention group (P = 0.045). The mean duration of hospital (11.9 versus 10.2 days; P = 0.007) and ICU (5.40 versus 3.12 days; P = 0.007) stays was also reduced. The rate of serious surgical complications (grade IIIb-V) was lower (37.6 versus 27.3 per cent; P = <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Standardized management protocols improved outcomes after emergency laparotomy.

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.

Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study

BACKGROUND

The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery.

METHODS

The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance.

RESULTS

Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

The prognostic value of surgical delay in patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mortality following major emergency abdominal surgery is high. Surgical delay is regarded as an important modifiable prognostic factor. Current care-bundles aim at reducing surgical delay, most often using a six-hour cut-off. We aimed to investigate the evidence supporting the in-hospital delay cutoffs currently used.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included studies assessing in-hospital surgical delay in major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Studies were only included if they performed adjusted analysis. Surgical delay beyond six hours was the primary cutfrom interest. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted if possible.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies were included with 16,772 participants. Two studies evaluated delay in unselected major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Three studies applied a six-hour cutoff, but only a study on acute mesenteric ischemia showed an association between delay and mortality. Meta-analysis showed no association with mortality at this cutoff. An association was seen between hourly delay and mortality risk estimate, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 - 1.03), and on subgroup analysis of hourly delay in perforated peptic ulcer patients, risk estimate, 1.02 (95% CI, 1.0 - 1.03). All risk estimates had a very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation score.

CONCLUSION

Little evidence supports a six-hour cutoff in unselected major emergency abdominal surgical patients. We found an association between hourly delay and increased mortality; however, evidence supporting this was primarily in patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. This review is limited by the quality of the individual studies.

Short and long-term impact of sarcopenia on outcomes from emergency laparotomy

PURPOSE

Emergency laparotomy (EL) carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality, that is greater among older patients. Sarcopenia refers to an age- or pathology-associated muscle loss and has been demonstrated to correlate with poorer outcomes in several surgical conditions. This study assessed the impact of sarcopenia on morbidity and mortality in elderly patients undergoing EL.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 65 years-old undergoing EL between May 2012-June 2017 with a pre-operative abdominal computerised tomography (CT) scan at Middlemore Hospital (New Zealand) were included. Psoas and Skeletal Muscle Index (PMI and SMI) were calculated from abdominal CT measurements after standardisation based on height. Validated cut-offs for sarcopenia were used. Frailty was estimated using the 11-point modified frailty index (mFI). The primary outcome was 30-day, 1-year, and 4-year post-operative mortality. Secondary outcomes included correlations between mFI and sarcopenic measures, unplanned readmissions, and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients (84 sarcopenic; 83 non-sarcopenic) were included. Sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic patients had similar 30-day (14.2 vs. 12.0%; p = 0.84), 1-year (23.8 vs. 25.3%; p = 0.96), and 4-year (39.3 vs. 47.0%; p = 0.40) mortality rates following an EL. Survivors had a higher mean PMI at 1-year (p = 0.0078) and 4-year (p = 0.013) but not 30-day (p = 0.40) follow-up. Sarcopenia performed poorly in discriminating between 30-day (AUC 0.51) and 1-year (AUC 0.53) mortality. The mFI did not correlate with PMI (p = 0.85) nor SMI (p = 0.18). Rates of readmissions and post-operative complications did not differ between sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenia does not provide useful short-term prognostic information in elderly EL patients.

Mortality following emergency laparotomy: a Swedish cohort study

Background

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a central, high-risk procedure in emergency surgery. Patients in need of an EL present an acute pathology in the abdomen that must be operated on in order to save their lives. Usually, the underlying condition produces an affected physiology. The perioperative management of this critically ill patient group in need of high-risk surgery and anaesthesia is challenging and related to high mortality worldwide. However, outcomes in Sweden have yet to be studied. This retrospective cohort study explores the perioperative management and outcome after 710 ELs by investigating mortality, overall length of stay (LOS) in hospital, need for care at the intensive care unit (ICU), surgical complications and a general review of perioperative management.

Methods

Medical records after laparotomy was retrospectively analysed for a period of 38 months (2014–2017), the emergency cases were included. Children (< 18 years), aortic surgery, second look and other expected reoperations were excluded. Demographic, management and outcome data were collected after an extensive analysis of the cohort.

Results

A total of 710 consecutive operations, representing 663 patients, were included in the cohort (mean age 65.6 years). Mortality (30 days/1 year) after all operations was 14.2% and 26.6% respectively. The mean LOS in hospital was 12 days, while LOS in the ICU was five days. Of all operations, 23.8% patients were admitted at any time to the ICU postoperatively and the 30-day mortality seen among ICU patients was 37.9%. Mortality was strongly correlated to existing comorbidity, high ASA classification, ICU care and faecal peritonitis. The mean/median time from notification to operate until the first incision was 3:46/3:02 h and 87% of patients had their first incision within 6 h of notification.

Conclusions

In this present Swedish study, high mortality and morbidity were observed after emergency laparotomy, which is in agreement with other recent studies.

Trial registration: The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03549624, registered 8 June 2018).

Post-Operative All-Cause Mortality in Elderly Patients Undergoing Abdominal Emergency Surgery: Role of Charlson Comorbidity Index

(1) Background: The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score has been shown to predict 10-year all-cause mortality, but its validity is a matter of debate in surgical patients. We wanted to evaluate CCI on predicting all-cause mortality in elderly patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery (EAS); (2) Methods: This retrospective single center study included all patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted from January 2017 to December 2019, who underwent EAS and were discharged alive. CCI was calculated by using of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Our outcome was all-cause death recorded during the 20.8 ± 8.8 month follow-up; (3) Results: We evaluated 197 patients aged 78.4 ± 7.2 years of whom 47 (23.8%) died. Mortality was higher in patients who underwent open abdominal surgery than in those treated with laparoscopic procedure (74% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), and in those who needed colon, small bowel, and gastric surgery. Mean CCI was 4.98 ± 2.2, and in subjects with CCI ≥ 4 survival was lower. Cox regression analysis showed that CCI (HR 1.132, 95% CI 1.009–1.270, p = 0.035), and open surgery (HR 10.298, 95%CI 1.409–75.285, p = 0.022) were associated with all-cause death independently from age and sex; (4) Conclusions: Calculation of CCI, could help surgeons in the preoperative stratification of risk of death after discharge in subjects aged ≥65 years who need EAS. CCI ≥ 4, increases the risk of all-causes mortality independently from age.

Emergency Laparotomies: Causes, Pathophysiology, and Outcomes

Emergency laparotomies have remained a challenging entity since many decades. Only during the past 10 years, serious efforts have been made to improve their outcome by conducting audits and designing care pathways. Indications for emergency laparotomies can be broadly classified into trauma and non-trauma surgeries, which are either done for control of hemorrhage or/and done for control of sepsis and organ dysfunction. Goal-directed resuscitation for septic/hemorrhagic shock, consultant-led multidisciplinary teams, and timely transfer to intensive care units form core principles of management for these patients. Global inequity in access to standard and affordable emergency surgeries is an area of concern requiring integrated efforts at international level.

How to cite this article: Ahmed A, Azim A. Emergency Laparotomies: Causes, Pathophysiology, and Outcomes. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 4):S183–S189.