3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Death After Colectomy It's Later Than We Think

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 144, 期 11, 页码 1021-1027

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.197

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Clinical outcomes are increasingly subject to objective assessment and professional accountability. Informed consent relies on accurate estimation of operative risk. Current scoring systems for assessment of operative mortality after colorectal surgery (CRS) almost uniformly report 30-day mortality and may not represent true risk. Design: Prospective cohort. Setting: University-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Patients: All patients who underwent resections of the colon and/or rectum ( as the principal operation) at a single hospital whose data are captured in the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VA-NSQIP) database from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006. Main Outcome Measures: Mortality at 30 days and 90 days. Results: The VA-NSQIP cohort included 186 patients who underwent CRS, including 148 patients who underwent elective procedures (79.6%) and 38 patients who underwent emergency procedures (20.4%). All but 8 patients were men, with a median age of 67 years ( range, 26-92 years). Laparoscopic operations comprised 24.2% and open operations comprised 75.8%. Most (60.8%) were performed for neoplasms. The actual 30-day mortality rates ( all, elective, and emergency procedures) were 4.3%, 1.4%, and 15.8%, respectively. These rates closely mirrored the calculated VA-NSQIP risk-adjusted observed-to-expected ratio for 30-day mortality (4.8%, 1.8%, and 18.2%, respectively). However, mortality at 90 days increased substantially to 9.1%, 4.1%, and 28.9%, respectively. Conclusion: The 30-day mortality significantly under-reports the true risk of death after CRS. The 90-day mortality rate should be included as a standard outcome measure after CRS because it serves as a better estimation of risk for counseling patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据