Incidence and estimated annual cost of emergency laparotomy in England: is there a major funding shortfall?

Sustained improved emergency laparotomy outcomes over 3 years after a transdisciplinary perioperative care pathway-A 1:1 propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high morbidity and significant global health burden. This study aims to compare postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent emergency laparotomy before and after implementation of a emergency laparotomy pathway.

METHODS

This is a single-center study of all patients who presented with an acute abdomen and/or conditions requiring emergency laparotomy during pre-emergency laparotomy pathway (retrospective cohort from January 2016 to December 2018) and after the emergency laparotomy pathway (prospective cohort from January 2019 to December 2021). Patients who underwent emergency laparotomy for trauma or vascular surgery were excluded. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to address for confounding factors.

RESULTS

There were 888 patients (emergency laparotomy pathway, n = 428, and pre-emergency laparotomy pathway, n = 460) in the unmatched cohort. The mean age was 63.0 ± 15.4 years, and 43.8% had predicted mortality >10% using Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity. The most common indication for emergency laparotomy was intestinal obstruction (30.5%). Overall incidence rates of major morbidity and 30-day mortality were 16.2% and 3.5%, respectively. There were 736 patients (n = 368 patients per arm) after propensity score matching. Demographic characteristics were comparable after propensity score matching. The emergency laparotomy pathway was associated with more patients assessed by geriatric medicine (odds ratio = 15.22; P < .001), reduced major morbidity (odds ratio = 0.63; P = .024), reduced intra-abdominal collection (odds ratio = 0.39; P = .006), and need for unplanned radiological and/or surgical intervention after index emergency laparotomy (odds ratio = 0.63; P = .024). Length of stay and 30-day mortality were comparable between the emergency laparotomy pathway and pre-emergency laparotomy pathway in both the unmatched and propensity score matched cohort.

CONCLUSION

Sustained improved postoperative outcomes were achieved 3 years postimplementation of the emergency laparotomy pathway .

The clinical consequences of burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy: a prospective, observational cohort study

PURPOSE

The emergency midline laparotomy is a commonly performed procedure with a burst abdomen being a critical surgical complication requiring further emergency surgery. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, observational cohort study of patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy during a two-year period was done. Abdominal wall closure followed a standardized technique using monofilament, slowly absorbable suture in a continuous suturing technique with a suture-to-wound ratio of at least 4:1. Treatment of burst abdomen was surgical. Data, including intra-hospital postoperative complications, were collected and registered chronologically based on journal entries. The primary outcome was to describe postoperative complications, length of stay, and the overall morbidity based on the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), stratified between patients who did and did not suffer from a burst abdomen during admission.

RESULTS

A total of 543 patients were included in the final cohort, including 24 patients with burst abdomen during admission. The incidence of burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy was 4.4%. Patients with a burst abdomen had a higher total amount of complications per patient (median of 3, IQR 1.3-5.8 vs. median of 1, IQR 0.0-3.0; p = 0.001) and a significantly higher CCI (median of 53.0, IQR 40.3-94.8 vs. median of 21.0, IQR 0.0-42.0; p =  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with burst abdomen had an increased risk of postoperative complications during admission as well as a longer and more complicated admission with multiple non-surgical complications.

Associated factors of mortality and morbidity in emergency and elective abdominal surgery: a two-year prospective cohort study at lacor hospital, Uganda

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate associated with open abdominal surgery is a significant concern for patients and healthcare providers. This is particularly worrisome in Africa due to scarce workforce resources and poor early warning systems for detecting physiological deterioration in patients who develop complications.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study aimed to follow patients who underwent emergency or elective abdominal surgery at Lacor Hospital in Uganda. The participants were patients who underwent abdominal surgery at the hospital between April 27th, 2019 and July 07th, 2021. Trained research staff collected data using standardized forms, which included demographic information (age, gender, telephone contact, and location), surgical indications, surgical procedures, preoperative health status, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The present study involved 124 patients, mostly male, with an average age of 35 years, who presented with abdominal pain and varying underlying comorbidities. Elective cases constituted 60.2% of the total. The common reasons for emergency and elective surgery were gastroduodenal perforation and cholelithiasis respectively. The complication rate was 17.7%, with surgical site infections being the most frequent. The mortality rate was 7.3%, and several factors such as preoperative hypotension, deranged renal function, postoperative use of vasopressors, and postoperative assisted ventilation were associated with it. Elective and emergency-operated patients showed no significant difference in survival (P-value = 0.41) or length of hospital stay (P-value = 0.17). However, there was a significant difference in morbidity (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Cholelithiasis and gastroduodenal perforation were key surgical indications, with factors like postoperative ventilation and adrenaline infusion linked to mortality. Emergency surgeries had higher complication rates, particularly surgical site infections, despite similar hospital stay and mortality rates compared to elective surgeries.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Frailty Assessment Can Enhance Current Risk Prediction Tools in Emergency Laparotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We set out to assess the performance of the P-POSSUM and NELA risk prediction tool (NELA RPT), and hypothesized that combining them with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) would significantly improve their performance. Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a high-risk surgical intervention, particularly for elderly patients with marked comorbidities and frailty. Accurate risk prediction is crucial for appropriate resource allocation, clinical decision making, and informed consent. Although patient frailty is a significant risk factor, the current risk prediction tools fail to take frailty into account.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center cohort study, we analyzed all cases entered into the NELA database from the Oxford University Hospitals between 01.01.2018 and 15.06.2021. We analyzed the performance of the P-POSSUM and NELA RPT. Both tools were modified by adding the CFS to the model.

RESULTS

The discrimination of both the P-POSSUM and NELA RPT was good, with a slightly worse performance in the elderly. Adding CFS into the P-POSSUM and NELA RPT models improved both tools in the elderly [AUC from 0.775 to 0.846 (p < 0.05) from 0.814 to 0.864 (p < 0.05), respectively]. The improvement of the NELA RPT across all age groups did not reach statistical significance. The CFS grade was associated with 30-day mortality in patients aged > 65 years. However, in younger patients, this effect was less marked than in the elderly.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in the P-POSSUM and NELA risk models when combined with the CFS. Frailty also increases the 30-day mortality after EL in younger individuals.

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.

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.

Are we selecting appropriate admissions for intensive care following major abdominal surgery: A retrospective cohort study on outcomes of 1059 patients

Background:

Like any other medical treatment, The intensive care unit (ICU) is a limited resource that needs to be utilized appropriately. This study aimed to identify the outcomes of patients admitted to the ICU based on patient demographic and severity score parameters.

Methods:

An observational retrospective cohort study of 1059 patients undergoing laparotomy who were admitted to the ICU was performed. Cases were sub-classified by the mode of admission and risk prediction scores and analyzed outcomes of mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS.

Results:

The mean age of patients who did not survive was older than those who survived, and higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre Physiology Score (ICNARC) observed in patients who died. Emergency admission was also an indicator of increased mortality. Survivors APACHE II scores were the same if they were elective or emergency admissions, although Survivors ICNARC scores were higher in emergency than in elective admissions. Patients who did not survive had a longer ICU LOS stay than those who survived, whereas elective survivors had shorter ICU LOS than the emergency survivors. Regardless of this hospital LOS was the same for both elective and emergency survivors.

Conclusion:

The most unwell patients had the highest risk prediction scores, were more often admitted in the emergency setting, required longer stays in ICU, and had less favorable outcomes. However, ICU did appear to expedite the hospital discharges of emergency patients to match their elective counterparts. Decisions around when and to which patients ICU is an appropriate intervention remains a difficult decision and one that cannot be made without full consideration of all aspects of patient factors.

Clinical frailty and its effect on the septuagenarian population after emergency laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

The UK has an ageing population with an increased prevalence of frailty in the over 70s. Emergency laparotomy for acute intra-abdominal pathology is increasingly offered to this population. This can challenge decision making and information given to patients should not only be based on mortality outcomes but on relative expected quality of life and change to frailty syndromes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single site National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA)-based retrospective cohort audit for consecutive cases in the septuagenarian population assessing mortality, length of stay outcome and subjective postoperative functioning. Follow-up was conducted between one and two years postoperatively to determine this.

RESULTS

Some 153 patients were identified throughout the single site NELA database. Median age was 79 years with a ratio of 1.7 men to women. Median rate of all-cause mortality was 35.3% at the median follow-up of 19 months. Median time from admission to death was 120 days. Of those who had died by the time of follow-up, significant preoperative indicators included clinical frailty scale (p < 0.0001), preoperative P-POSSUM (mortality). At follow-up, 35% responded to a quality of life follow-up. This revealed a decline in mid-term physical functioning, lower energy, higher fatigue and reduction in social functioning. There was also an increase in pre- and postoperative clinical frailty scale score.

CONCLUSION

In the septuagenarian-plus population it is important to consider not only risk stratification with mortality scoring (P-POSSUM or NELA-adjusted risk), but to take into account frailty. Postoperative rehabilitation and careful recovery is paramount. Where possible, during the counselling and consent for emergency laparotomy, significant postoperative long-term deterioration in physical, emotional and social function should be considered.

Evaluating and improving current risk prediction tools in emergency laparotomy

PURPOSE

Emergency laparotomy (EL) encompasses a high-risk group of operations, which are increasingly performed on a heterogeneous population of patients, making preoperative risk assessment potentially difficult. The UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) recently produced a risk predictive tool for EL that has not yet been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate and potentially improve the NELA tool for mortality prediction after EL.

METHODOLOGY

We reviewed computer and paper records of EL patients from May 2012 to June 2017 at Middlemore Hospital (New Zealand). The inclusion criteria mirrored the UK NELA. We examined the NELA, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs risk predictive tools for 30-day mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess calibration, and the c statistic, to evaluate discrimination (accuracy) of the tools. We added the modified frailty index (mFI) and nutrition to improve the accuracy of risk predictive tools.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients met the inclusion criteria, with an observed 30-day mortality of 7.9%. The NELA was the only well calibrated tool, with predicted 30-day mortality of 7.4% (p = 0.22). When combined with mFI and nutritional status, the c statistic for NELA improved from 0.83 to 0.88. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs, APACHE-II, and P-POSSUM had lower c statistics, albeit also showing an improvement (0.84, 0.81, and 0.74, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the NELA tool to be most predictive of mortality after EL. The NELA tool would therefore facilitate preoperative risk assessment and operative decision making most precisely in EL. Future research should consider adding mFI and nutritional status to the NELA tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Retrospective observational cohort study.

Mortality risk scoring in emergency general surgery: Are we using the best tool?

BACKGROUND

It is imperative that an accurate assessment of risk of death is undertaken preoperatively on all patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy. Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) is one of the most widely used scores. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) presents a novel, validated score, but no direct comparison with P-POSSUM exists. We aimed to determine which would be the best predictor of mortality.

METHODS

We analysed all the entries on the online NELA database over a four-and-a-half-year period. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test was performed to assess model calibration. For the outcome of death and for each scoring system, a non-parametric receiver operator characteristic analysis was done. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operator characteristic curve and their standard errors were calculated.

RESULTS

Data pertaining to 650 patients were included. There were 59 deaths, giving an overall observed mortality rate of 9.1%. Predicted mortality rate for the P-POSSUM score and NELA score were 15.2% and 7.8%, respectively. The discriminative power for mortality was highest for the NELA score (C-index = 0.818, CI: 0.769-0.867, p < 0.001), when compared to P-POSSUM (C-index = 0.769, CI: 0.712-0.827, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The NELA score showed good discrimination in predicting mortality in the entire cohort. The P-POSSUM over-predicted observed mortality and the NELA score under-predicted observed mortality.

SMASH standardised perioperative management of patients operated with acute abdominal surgery in a high-risk setting

Objective of the study

Emergency laparotomy and other high-risk acute abdominal surgery procedures have a high mortality rate. The perioperative management of these patients is complex and poses several challenges. The objective of the study is to implement and evaluate the outcome of protocol-based standardised care for patients in need of acute abdominal surgery in a Swedish setting. NÄL is a large county hospital in Sweden serving a population of approximately 270,000 inhabitants. The study seeks to determine whether standardised protocol-based perioperative management in emergency abdominal surgical procedures leads to a better outcome measured as short- and long-term mortality and postoperative complications compared with the present standard in Swedish routine care. The study is ongoing, and this article describes the methodology used in the study and discusses the benefits and limitations the study design.

Results

There are no results so far. The inclusion rate for the first 22 months is as expected; 404 patients have been included and protocols have been followed and reviewed according to the study plan. 25 patients have been missed and demographic data and outcome data for these patients will be collected and analysed.

Comparative analysis of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM scoring systems in predicting postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Laparotomy remains one of the commonest emergency surgical procedures. Early prognostic evaluation would aid in selecting the high-risk patients for an aggressive treatment. Awareness about risks could potentially contribute to the quality of perioperative care and optimum utilization of resources. Portsmouth modification of Physiological and operative severity for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II) have been the most widely used scoring systems for emergency laparotomies. It is always better to have a single scoring system to predict outcomes and audit healthcare organizations.

AIM

To compare the ability of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

All patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur between December 2013 and November 2014 were included in the study. In this observational study, P-POSSUM and APACHE-II scoring were done, and the outcome analysis evaluated with mortality being the primary outcome.

RESULTS

For P-POSSUM, at a cut off value of 63 to predict mortality using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, the area under the curve was 0.989; and for APACHE-II, at the cut off value of 24, the area under the curve was 0.965.

CONCLUSION

Because the ability of APACHE-II to predict mortality was similar to P-POSSUM and APACHE-II does not need scoring for intra-operative findings and histopathology reports, APACHE-II can be used pre-operatively to assess the risk in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. However, for audit purposes, either of the two scoring systems can be used.

Association between surgeon special interest and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background

Approximately 30 000 emergency laparotomies are performed each year in England and Wales. Patients with pathology of the gastrointestinal tract requiring emergency laparotomy are managed by general surgeons with an elective special interest focused on either the upper or lower gastrointestinal tract. This study investigated the impact of special interest on mortality after emergency laparotomy.

Methods

Adult patients having emergency laparotomy with either colorectal or gastroduodenal pathology were identified from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database and grouped according to operative procedure. Outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay and return to theatre. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to analyse the association between consultant special interest and the three outcomes.

Results

A total of 33 819 patients (28 546 colorectal, 5273 upper gastrointestinal (UGI)) were included. Patients who had colorectal procedures performed by a consultant without a special interest in colorectal surgery had an increased adjusted 30-day mortality risk (odds ratio (OR) 1·23, 95 per cent c.i. 1·13 to 1·33). Return to theatre also increased in this group (OR 1·13, 1·05 to 1·20). UGI procedures performed by non-UGI special interest surgeons carried an increased adjusted risk of 30-day mortality (OR 1·24, 1·02 to 1·53). The risk of return to theatre was not increased (OR 0·89, 0·70 to 1·12).

Conclusion

Emergency laparotomy performed by a surgeon whose special interest is not in the area of the pathology carries an increased risk of death at 30 days. This finding potentially has significant implications for emergency service configuration, training and workforce provision, and should stimulate discussion among all stakeholders.

Outcomes of Emergency Laparotomy (EL) Care Protocol at Tertiary Care Center from Low-Middle-Income Country (LMIC)

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy mortality ranges between 10 and 20% in best of Western healthcare systems and is currently a major focus for quality improvement programs. In contrast, emergency surgery scenario in LMIC is largely undefined, often neglected and complex (large burden of diseases but only limited capacity for adequate treatment). We evaluated the efficacy of 'EL care protocol' aimed at cost-effective optimal utilization of best available local expertise and infrastructure.

METHODS

One hundred and two consecutive adult patients (≥16 years) who underwent EL from December 2012-December 2015 at a private tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic procedures were excluded from the analysis. The EL care protocol included. (1) Admission to surgical intensive care unit for pre- and postoperative optimization. (2) Preferred radiologic investigation: abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan. (3) Surgery and critical care by senior surgical gastroenterologists and internists/anesthesiologists, respectively. Outcome measures were procedure-related complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), readmissions and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 102 patients, there were 62 males and 40 females with median age of 60 (range 16-93) years. There were no complications in 22 (21.6%) patients, while Clavien-Dindo complications grade I or II occurred in 48 (47%) patients. Grade V Clavien-Dindo complications and the 30-day mortality were similar of 19 (18.6%). The readmission rate was 8 (7.8%). The expected mortality for the study group by P-POSSUM score was 31.2 (30.6%). The ratio (O/E) of observed to expected mortality was 0.61. The all inclusive median cost of treatment was INR 379,255 ($5590).

CONCLUSIONS

LMIC centers should develop their own center-specific EL care protocols to improve outcomes of EL.

Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy

BACKGROUND

The recent Emergency Laparotomy Pathway Quality Improvement Care (ELPQuiC) study showed that the use of a specific care bundle reduced mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. However, the costs of implementation of the ELPQuiC bundle remain unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the in-hospital and societal costs of implementing the ELPQuiC bundle.

METHODS

The ELPQuiC study employed a before-after approach using quality improvement methodology. To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of the bundle, two models were constructed: a short-term model to assess in-hospital costs and a long-term model (societal decision tree) to evaluate the patient's lifetime costs (in euros).

RESULTS

Using health economic modelling and data collected from the ELPQuiC study, estimated costs for initial implementation of the ELPQuiC bundle were €30 026·11 (range 1794·64-40 784·06) per hospital. In-hospital costs per patient were estimated at €14 817·24 for standard (non-care bundle) treatment versus €15 971·24 for the ELPQuiC bundle treatment. Taking a societal perspective, lifetime costs of the patient in the standard group were €23 058·87, compared with €19 102·37 for patients receiving the ELPQuiC bundle. The increased life expectancy of 4 months for patients treated with the ELPQuiC bundle was associated with cost savings of €11 410·38 per quality-adjusted life-year saved.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the ELPQuiC bundle is associated with lower mortality and higher in-hospital costs but reduced societal costs.

Impact of laparoscopic approach in emergency major abdominal surgery: single-centre analysis of 748 consecutive cases

Background Acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy is a common surgical presentation. Despite its widespread implementation in other surgical procedures, laparoscopy, rather than laparotomy, is sparingly used in major emergency surgery. This study reports outcomes and impact of rising use of laparoscopy for a single high-volume district general hospital. Methods Data were retrieved from the prospective National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database for a 30-month period. Patient, procedural, and in-hospital outcome data were collated. Temporal trends were assessed and regression analysis conducted for clinical outcomes. Results A total of 748 consecutive cases were recorded. There was an increasing use of laparoscopy over the study period, with 49% of cases attempted laparoscopically in the final six-month interval. Patients treated laparoscopically were at reduced risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.114, 95% confidence interval 0.024 to 0.550) and experienced reduced length of intensive care stay (regression coefficient –1.571, 95% confidence interval –2.625 to –0.517) in multivariate adjusted analysis. Conclusions Laparoscopy is safe and feasible in a large proportion of cases. It is associated with improved outcomes versus laparotomy.

Thirty-day mortality in patients undergoing laparotomy for small bowel obstruction

Background

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common indication for emergency laparotomy. There are currently variations in the timing of surgery for patients with SBO and limited evidence on whether delayed surgery affects outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of time to operation on 30-day mortality in patients requiring emergency laparotomy for SBO.

Methods

Data were collected from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) on all patients aged 18 years or older who underwent emergency laparotomy for all forms of SBO between December 2013 and November 2015. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with date of death obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Patients were grouped according to the time from admission to surgery (less than 24 h, 24–72 h and more than 72 h). A multilevel logistic regression model was used to explore the impact of patient factors, primarily delay to surgery, on 30-day mortality.

Results

Some 9991 patients underwent emergency laparotomy requiring adhesiolysis or small bowel resection for SBO. The overall mortality rate was 7·2 per cent (722 patients). Within each time group, 30-day mortality rates were significantly worse with increasing age, ASA grade, Portsmouth POSSUM score and level of contamination. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy more than 72 h after admission had a significantly higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rate (odds ratio 1·39, 95 per cent c.i. 1·09 to 1·76).

Conclusion

In patients who require an emergency laparotomy with adhesiolysis or resection for SBO, a delay to surgery of more than 72 h is associated with a higher 30-day postoperative mortality rate.

Cost-effectiveness of routine imaging of suspected appendicitis

Introduction The misdiagnosis of appendicitis and consequent removal of a normal appendix occurs in one in five patients in the UK. On the contrary, in healthcare systems with routine cross-sectional imaging of suspected appendicitis, the negative appendicectomy rate is around 5%. If we could reduce the rate in the UK to similar numbers, would this be cost effective? This study aimed to calculate the financial impact of negative appendicectomy at the Queen Alexandra Hospital and to explore whether a policy of routine imaging of such patients could reduce hospital costs. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all appendicectomies over a 1-year period at our institution. Data were extracted on outcomes including appendix histology, operative time and length of stay to calculate the negative appendicectomy rate and to analyse costs. Results A total of 531 patients over 5 years of age had an appendicectomy. The negative appendicectomy rate was 22% (115/531). The additional financial costs of negative appendicectomy to the hospital during this period were £270,861. Universal imaging of all patients with right iliac fossa pain that could result in a 5% negative appendicectomy rate would cost between £67,200 and £165,600 per year but could save £33,896 (magnetic resonance imaging), £105,896 (computed tomography) or £132,296 (ultrasound) depending on imaging modality used. Conclusions Negative appendicectomy is still too frequent and results in additional financial burden to the health service. Routine imaging of patients with suspected appendicitis would not only reduce the negative appendicectomy rate but could lead to cost savings and a better service for our patients.

A systematic review and overview of health economic evaluations of emergency laparotomy

Background

Little is known about the economic impact of emergency laparotomy (EL) surgery in healthcare systems around the world. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the primary resource utilisation, healthcare economic and societal costs of EL in adults in different countries.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL were searched for full and partial economic analyses of EL published between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2015. Quality of studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist.

Results

Sixteen studies were included from a range of countries. One study was a full economic analysis. Fifteen studies were partial economic evaluations. These studies revealed that emergency abdominal surgery is expensive compared to similar elective surgery when comparing primary resource utilisation costs, with an important societal impact. Most contemporaneous studies indicate that in-hospital costs for EL are in excess of US$10,000 per patient episode, rising substantially when societal costs are considered.

Discussion

EL is a high-risk and costly procedure with a disproportionate financial burden for healthcare providers, relative to national funding provisions and wider societal cost impact. There is substantial heterogeneity in the methodologies and quality of published economic evaluations of EL; therefore, the true economic costs of EL are yet to be fully defined. Future research should focus on developing strategies to embed health economic evaluations within national programmes aiming to improve EL care, including developing the required measures and infrastructure.

Conclusions

Emergency laparotomy is expensive, with a significant cost burden to healthcare and systems and society worldwide. Novel strategies for reducing this econmic burden should urgently be explored if greater access to this type of surgery is to be pursued as a global health target.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration no. 42015027210.

Patient outcome of emergency laparotomy improved with increasing "number of surgeons on-call" in a university hospital: Audit loop

AIM

Emergency laparotomy is a commonly performed high-mortality surgical procedure. The National Emergency Laparotomy Network (NELA) published an average mortality rate of 11.1% and a median length of stay equivalent to 16.3 days in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. This study presents a completed audit loop after implementing the change of increasing the number of on-call surgeons in the general surgery rota of a university hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of emergency laparotomy in a single UK tertiary centre after addition of one more consultant in the daily on-call rota.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study involving patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between March to May 2013 (first audit) and June to August 2015 (second audit). The study parameters stayed the same. The adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy under the general surgical take were included. Appendicectomy, cholecystectomy and simple inguinal hernia repair patients were excluded. Data was collected on patient demographics, ASA, morbidity, 30-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis including logistic regression was performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

During the second 3-month period, 123 patients underwent laparotomy compared to 84 in the first audit. Median age was 65(23-93) years. 56.01% cases were ASA III or above in the re-audit compared to 41.9% in the initial audit. 38% patients had bowel anastomosis compared to 35.7% in the re-audit with 4.2% leak rate in the re-audit compared to 16.6% in the first audit. 30-day mortality was 10.50% in the re-audit compared to 21% and median length of hospital stay 11 days in the re-audit compared to 16 days. The lower ASA grade was significantly associated with increased likelihood of being alive, as was being female, younger age and not requiring ITU admission post-operatively. However, having a second on-call consultant was 2.231 times more likely to increase the chances of patients not dying (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Our audit-loop suggests that adding a second consultant to the daily on-call rota significantly reduces postoperative mortality and morbidity. Age, ASA and ITU admission are other independent factors affecting patient outcomes. We suggest this change be applied to other high volume centres across the country to improve the outcomes after emergency laparotomy.

Survival After Emergency General Surgery: What can We Learn from Enhanced Recovery Programmes?

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been adopted by many centres and across whole healthcare systems. The results have shown significant reductions in length of stay and postoperative complications. However, there has been very little change in these factors and mortality in emergency surgery. Can we learn from principles of ERAS for emergency abdominal surgery?

Pre-NELA vs NELA - has anything changed, or is it just an audit exercise?

BACKGROUND Following evidence suggestive of high mortality following emergency laparotomies, the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) was set up, highlighting key standards in emergency service provision. Our aim was to compare our NHS trust's adherence to these recommendations immediately prior to, and following, the launch of NELA, and to compare patient outcome. METHODS This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy over the course of 6 months - 3 months either side of the initiation of NELA. RESULTS There were 44 patients before the initiation of NELA (pre-NELA, PN group) and 55 in the first 3 months of NELA (N group). We saw a significant increase in the proportion of patients whose decision to operate was made by the consultant: 75.0% in the PN group vs 100% in N group (subsequent data presented in this order) (P < 0.001). The presence of a consultant surgeon (75.0% vs 83.6%, P = 0.321) and anaesthetist (100.0% vs 90.9%, P = 0.064) in theatres were comparable in both groups. Risk stratification based on Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) score showed no difference in high-risk patients in both groups (47.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.306). With the NELA initiative, however, significantly more patients were admitted directly from theatres to the critical care unit, when compared with the pre-NELA period (9.1% vs 27.3%, P = 0.038). This also reflected a significant reduction in unexpected escalation to a higher level of care during this period (10.0% vs 0%, P = 0.036). Significantly more patients had uneventful recovery in the NELA period (52.3 vs 76.4%, P = 0.018), although there was no difference in 30-day mortality between the groups (2.3% vs 7.3%, P = 0.378). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated a greater degree of consultant involvement in the decision to operate during NELA. More high-risk patients have been identified preoperatively with diligent risk assessment and, hence, have been proactively admitted to critical care units following laparotomy, which may account for the significant reduction in unexpected escalation to level 2 or level 3 care and thus in overall better patient outcomes.

In-hospital costs of an admission for adhesive small bowel obstruction

Background

Previous research on the costs of treatment for ASBO is outdated and often based on reimbursements, rather than true healthcare provider costs of the admission and related interventions. An accurate estimate of the true costs of treatment is necessary to understand the healthcare burden and to model cost-efficacy of adhesion strategies. The aim of this study was to provide an accurate cost estimate of the in-hospital costs for treatment of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) using micro-costing methods.

Methods

Consecutive patients admitted for ASBO to the Radboud University Medical Center from November 2013 to November 2015 were included. An episode of ASBO was defined as an admission for SBO with operative confirmation of adhesions or after radiological exclusion of other causes for SBO. For the purpose of generalization we used the costs of medication and interventions as provided by the Dutch Healthcare Authority and only if these were not available local hospital costs. We evaluated costs separately for operative and non-operative treatment for ASBO.

Results

During the study period 39 admissions for ASBO were eligible for analysis. An operative treatment was required in 19 patients (48.7 %). Mean hospital stay for ASBO with operative treatment was 16.0 ± 11 days versus 4.0 ± 2.0 days for non-operative treatment (P = 0.003). A total of 12 patients developed complications, 2 in the non-operative group (10 %) and 10 in the operative group (52.6 %; P = 0.004). Overall costs for an admission for ASBO with operative treatment were €16 305 (SD €2 513), and for non-operative treatment € 2 277 (SD € 265) (p = <0.001). The highest expenditure with operative treatment for ASBO was made for ward stay (mean €7 856, SD €6 882), OR time (mean €2 6845, SD €1 434), ICU stay (mean €2 183, SD €4 305) and (parenteral) feeding costs (mean €1797, SD €2070). A table with correction coefficient to correct for differences in price levels for goods and services between different countries has been added.

Conclusion

The in-hospital costs of an admission for ASBO are higher than previously thought. These costs can be used to guide hospital reimbursement policy and for the development of a cost-effective model for the use of adhesion barriers.

Estimated costs before, during and after the introduction of the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuIC) bundle

Implementation of a quality improvement bundle for peri-operative management of emergency laparotomy (ELPQuIC) improved mortality in a previous study. We used data from one site that participated in that study to examine whether it was associated with the cost of care. We collected data from 396 patients: 144 before, 144 during and 108 after implementation of the bundle. We estimated costs incurred using previously published methodology based on the time the patient spent in hospital, in the operating theatre and in critical care. Duration of stay in hospital and critical care did not differ between time periods, p = 0.14 and p = 0.28, respectively. The costs per patient and per survivor did not differ between the time periods, p = 0.87 and p = 0.17, respectively. Costs were similar for patients aged < 80 years vs. ≥ 80 years. Implementation of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy has the capacity to save lives without increasing hospital costs.

Association between surgical delay and survival in high-risk emergency abdominal surgery. A population-based Danish cohort study

OBJECTIVE

In patients with perforated peptic ulcer, surgical delay has recently been shown to be a critical determinant of survival. The aim of the present population-based cohort study was to evaluate the association between surgical delay by hour and mortality in high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in general.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All in-patients aged ≥ 18 years having emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy performed within 48 h of admission between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 in 13 Danish hospitals were included. Baseline and clinical data, including surgical delay and 90-day mortality were collected. The crude and adjusted association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was assessed by binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2803 patients were included. Median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 66 (51-78) years, and 515 patients (18.4%) died within 90 days of surgery. Over the first 24 h after hospital admission, each hour of surgical delay beyond hospital admission was associated with a median (IQR) decrease in 90-day survival of 2.2% (1.9-3.3%). No statistically significant association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was shown; crude and adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval 1.016 (1.004-1.027) and 1.003 (0.989-1.017), respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary finding.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present population-based cohort study of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, no statistically significant adjusted association between mortality and surgical delay was found. Additional research in diagnosis-specific subgroups of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is warranted.

Assessing the risk: Scoring systems for outcome prediction in emergency laparotomies

Emergency laparotomy is the commonest emergency surgical procedure in most hospitals and includes over 400 diverse surgical procedures. Despite the evolution of medicine and surgical practices, the mortality in patients needing emergency laparotomy remains abnormally high. Although surgical risk assessment first started with the ASA Physical Status score in 1941, efforts to find an ideal scoring system that accurately estimates the risk of mortality, continues till today. While many scoring systems have been developed, no single scoring system has been validated across multiple centers and geographical locations. While some scoring systems can predict the risk merely based upon preoperative findings and parameters, some rely on intra-operative assessment and histopathology reports to accurately stratify the risk of mortality. Although most scoring systems can potentially be used to compare risk-adjusted mortality across hospitals and amongst surgeons, only those which are based on preoperative findings can be used for risk prognostication and identify high-risk patients before surgery for an aggressive treatment. The recognition of the fact, that in the absence of outcome data in these patients, it would be impossible to evaluate the impact of quality improvement initiatives on risk-adjusted mortality, hospital groups and surgical societies have got together and started to pool data and analyze it. Appropriate scoring systems for emergency laparotomies would help in risk prognostication, risk-adjusted audit and assess the impact of quality improvement initiative in patient care across hospitals. Large multi-centric studies across varied geographic locations and surgical practices need to assess and validate the ideal and most apt scoring system for emergency laparotomies. While APACHE-II and P-POSSUM continue to be the most commonly used scoring system in emergency laparotomies,studies need to compare them in their ability to predict mortality and explore if either has a higher sensitivity and specificity than the other.

Risk assessment tools validated for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a systematic review

Emergency laparotomies are performed commonly throughout the world, but one in six patients die within a month of surgery. Current international initiatives to reduce the considerable associated morbidity and mortality are founded upon delivering individualised perioperative care. However, while the identification of high-risk patients requires the routine assessment of individual risk, no method of doing so has been demonstrated to be practical and reliable across the commonly encountered spectrum of presentations, co-morbidities and operative procedures. A systematic review of Embase and Medline identified 20 validation studies assessing 25 risk assessment tools in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The most frequently studied general tools were APACHE II, ASA-PS and P-POSSUM. Comparative, quantitative analysis of tool performance was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of study design, poor reporting and infrequent within-study statistical comparison of tool performance. Reporting of calibration was notably absent in many prognostic tool validation studies. APACHE II demonstrated the most consistent discrimination of individual outcome across a variety of patient groups undergoing emergency laparotomy when used either preoperatively or postoperatively (area under the curve 0.76-0.98). While APACHE systems were designed for use in critical care, the ability of APACHE II to generate individual risk estimates from objective, exclusively preoperative data items may lead to better-informed shared decisions, triage and perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Future endeavours should include the recalibration of APACHE II and P-POSSUM in contemporary cohorts, modifications to enable prediction of morbidity and assessment of the impact of adoption of these tools on clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Randomized multicentre feasibility trial of intermediate care versus standard ward care after emergency abdominal surgery (InCare trial)

Background

Emergency abdominal surgery carries a considerable risk of death and postoperative complications. Early detection and timely management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim was to evaluate the effect and feasibility of intermediate care compared with standard ward care in patients who had emergency abdominal surgery.

Methods

This was a randomized clinical trial carried out in seven Danish hospitals. Eligible for inclusion were patients with an Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at least 10 who were ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of emergency abdominal surgery. Participants were randomized to either intermediate care or standard surgical ward care after surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

Results

In total, 286 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The trial was terminated after the interim analysis owing to slow recruitment and a lower than expected mortality rate. Eleven (7·6 per cent) of 144 patients assigned to intermediate care and 12 (8·5 per cent) of 142 patients assigned to ward care died within 30 days of surgery (odds ratio 0·91, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 2·16; P = 0·828). Thirty (20·8 per cent) of 144 patients assigned to intermediate care and 37 (26·1 per cent) of 142 assigned to ward care died within the total observation period (hazard ratio 0·78, 95 per cent c.i. 0·48 to 1·26; P = 0·310).

Conclusion

Postoperative intermediate care had no statistically significant effect on 30-day mortality after emergency abdominal surgery, nor any effect on secondary outcomes. The trial was stopped prematurely owing to slow recruitment and a much lower than expected mortality rate among the enrolled patients. Registration number: NCT01209663 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Current outcomes of emergency large bowel surgery

INTRODUCTION

Emergency large bowel surgery (ELBS) is known to carry an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have reported morbidity and mortality rates up to 14.3%. However, there has not been a recent study to document the outcomes of ELBS following several major changes in surgical training and provision of emergency surgery. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the current outcomes of ELBS.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a prospectively maintained database of the clinical records of all patients who had ELBS between 2006 and 2013. Data pertaining to patient demographics, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) grade, diagnosis, surgical procedure performed, grade of operating surgeon and assistant, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients underwent ELBS during the study period. The mean patient age was 62 years and the most common cause was colonic carcinoma (n=67, 33%). There were 32 patients (15.8%) who presented with obstruction and 64 (31.7%) had bowel perforation. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 14.8% (n=30). A consultant surgeon was involved in 187 cases (92.6%) as either first operator, assistant or available in theatre.

CONCLUSIONS

ELBS continues to carry a high risk despite several major changes in the provision of emergency surgery. Further developments are needed to improve postoperative outcomes in these patients.

Use of a pathway quality improvement care bundle to reduce mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background

Emergency laparotomies in the UK, USA and Denmark are known to have a high risk of death, with accompanying evidence of suboptimal care. The emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuiC) bundle is an evidence-based care bundle for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, consisting of: initial assessment with early warning scores, early antibiotics, interval between decision and operation less than 6 h, goal-directed fluid therapy and postoperative intensive care.

Methods

The ELPQuiC bundle was implemented in four hospitals, using locally identified strategies to assess the impact on risk-adjusted mortality. Comparison of case mix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates before and after care-bundle implementation was made using risk-adjusted cumulative sum (CUSUM) plots and a logistic regression model.

Results

Risk-adjusted CUSUM plots showed an increase in the numbers of lives saved per 100 patients treated in all hospitals, from 6·47 in the baseline interval (299 patients included) to 12·44 after implementation (427 patients included) (P < 0·001). The overall case mix-adjusted risk of death decreased from 15·6 to 9·6 per cent (risk ratio 0·614, 95 per cent c.i. 0·451 to 0·836; P = 0·002). There was an increase in the uptake of the ELPQuiC processes but no significant difference in the patient case-mix profile as determined by the mean Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity risk (0·197 and 0·223 before and after implementation respectively; P = 0·395).

Conclusion

Use of the ELPQuiC bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death following emergency laparotomy.

30-Day and 1-year mortality in emergency general surgery laparotomies: an area of concern and need for improvement?

AIMS

Emergency surgery is associated with poorer outcomes and higher mortality with recent studies suggesting the 30-day mortality to be 14-15%. The aim of this study was to analyse the 30-day mortality, age-related 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality following emergency laparotomy. We hope this will encourage prospective data collection, improvement of care and initiate strategies to establish best practice in this area.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent emergency laparotomy from June 2010 to May 2012. The primary end point of the study was 30-day mortality, age-related 30-day mortality and 1-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

477 laparotomies were performed in 446 patients. 57% were aged <70 and 43% aged >70 years. 30-day mortality was 12, 4% in those aged <70 years and 22% in those >70 years (p < 0.001). 1-year mortality was 25, 15% in those aged under 70 years and 38% in those aged >70 years (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency laparotomy carries a high rate of mortality, especially in those over the age of 70 years, and more needs to be done to improve outcomes, particularly in this group. This could involve increasing acute surgical care manpower, early recognition of patients requiring emergency surgery, development of clear management protocols for such patients or perhaps even considering centralisation of emergency surgical services to specialist centres with multidisciplinary teams involving emergency surgeons and care of the elderly physicians in hospital and related community outreach services for post-discharge care.

Mortality and postoperative care pathways after emergency gastrointestinal surgery in 2904 patients: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery carries a considerable risk of mortality and postoperative complications. Effective management of complications and appropriate organization of postoperative care may improve outcome. The importance of the latter is poorly described in emergency GI surgical patients. We aimed to present mortality data and evaluate the postoperative care pathways used after emergency GI surgery.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study with prospectively collected data from six Capital Region hospitals in Denmark. We included 2904 patients undergoing major GI laparotomy or laparoscopy surgery between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. The primary outcome measure was 30 day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 538 patients [18.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17.1-19.9] died within 30 days of surgery. In all, 84.2% of the patients were treated after operation in the standard ward, with a 30 day mortality of 14.3%, and 4.8% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a median stay of 2 days (inter-quartile range: 1-6). When compared with 'admission to standard ward', 'admission to standard ward before ICU admission' and 'ICU admission after surgery' were independently associated with 30 day mortality; odds ratio 5.45 (95% CI: 3.48-8.56) and 3.27 (95% CI: 2.45-4.36), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality in emergency major GI surgical patients remains high. Failure to allocate patients to the appropriate level of care immediately after surgery may contribute to the high postoperative mortality. Future research should focus on improving risk stratification and evaluating the effect of different postoperative care pathways in emergency GI surgery.

Current UK practice in emergency laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

Emergency laparotomy is a common procedure, with 30,000-50,000 performed annually in the UK. This large scale study reports the current spectrum of emergency laparotomies, and the influence of the surgical procedure, underlying pathology and subspecialty of the operating surgeon on mortality.

METHODS

Anonymised data on consecutive patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy were submitted for a three-month period. The primary outcome measure was unadjusted 30-day mortality. Appendicectomy and cholecystectomy were among the procedures excluded.

RESULTS

Data from 1,708 patients from 35 National Health Service hospitals were analysed. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14.8%. 'True' emergency laparotomies (ie those classified by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death as immediate or urgent) comprised 86.5% of cases. The mortality rate rose from 8.0% among expedited cases to 14.3% among urgent cases and to 25.7% among laparotomies termed immediate. Among the most common index procedures, small bowel resection exhibited the highest 30-day mortality rate of 21.1%. The presence of abdominal sepsis was associated with raised 30-day mortality (17.5% in the presence of sepsis vs 12.6%, p=0.027). Colorectal procedures comprised 44.3% and within this group, data suggest that mortality from laparotomy may be influenced by surgical subspecialisation.

CONCLUSIONS

This report of a large number of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in the UK confirms a remarkably high mortality by modern standards across the range. Very few pathologies or procedures can be considered anything other than high risk. The need for routine consultant involvement and critical care is evident, and the case distribution helps define the surgical skill set needed for a modern emergency laparotomy service. Preliminary data relating outcomes from emergency colonic surgery to surgical subspecialty require urgent further study.

Current UK practice in emergency laparotomy

Introduction

Emergency laparotomy is a common procedure, with 30,000–50,000 performed annually in the UK. This large scale study reports the current spectrum of emergency laparotomies, and the influence of the surgical procedure, underlying pathology and subspecialty of the operating surgeon on mortality.

Methods

Anonymised data on consecutive patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy were submitted for a three-month period. The primary outcome measure was unadjusted 30-day mortality. Appendicectomy and cholecystectomy were among the procedures excluded.

Results

Data from 1,708 patients from 35 National Health Service hospitals were analysed. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14.8%. ‘True’ emergency laparotomies (ie those classified by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death as immediate or urgent) comprised 86.5% of cases. The mortality rate rose from 8.0% among expedited cases to 14.3% among urgent cases and to 25.7% among laparotomies termed immediate. Among the most common index procedures, small bowel resection exhibited the highest 30-day mortality rate of 21.1%. The presence of abdominal sepsis was associated with raised 30-day mortality (17.5% in the presence of sepsis vs 12.6%, p=0.027). Colorectal procedures comprised 44.3% and within this group, data suggest that mortality from laparotomy may be influenced by surgical subspecialisation.

Conclusions

This report of a large number of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in the UK confirms a remarkably high mortality by modern standards across the range. Very few pathologies or procedures can be considered anything other than high risk. The need for routine consultant involvement and critical care is evident, and the case distribution helps define the surgical skill set needed for a modern emergency laparotomy service. Preliminary data relating outcomes from emergency colonic surgery to surgical subspecialty require urgent further study.