The prospectively collected Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality system reported fewer procedures with complications than the retrospectively recorded ACS NSQIP (31.1% vs 39.0%; p=0.03).
Observational (n=1,788)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 31.1% vs 39%
p-value: p=0.03
BACKGROUND: Monitoring surgical outcomes is critical to quality improvement; however, different data-collection methodologies can provide divergent evaluations of surgical outcomes. We compared postoperative adverse event reporting on the same patients using 2 classification systems: the retrospectively recorded American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP and the prospectively collected Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality (TM p = 0.01), and wound complications were lower (2.5% vs 6.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall rates were similar, significant differences in collection, definitions, and classification of postoperative adverse events were observed when comparing TM&M and ACS NSQIP. Although both systems offer complementary value, harmonization of definitions and severity classification would enhance quality-improvement programs.
Ivanovic et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Thoracic surgical cases (n=1,788). Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality (TM&M) system vs. American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP was evaluated on Procedures with complications reported (p=0.03). The prospectively collected Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality system reported fewer procedures with complications than the retrospectively recorded ACS NSQIP (31.1% vs 39.0%; p=0.03).