Why the study?
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing criteria for lung resection risk stratification have not been updated in over a decade despite significant advances in patient care, raising questions about its predictive value.
Does adding cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters to baseline clinical data and pulmonary function tests improve the prediction of postoperative complications in lung resection candidates?
Does adding cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters to baseline clinical data and pulmonary function tests improve the prediction of postoperative complications in lung resection candidates?
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing does not improve the predictive performance of machine learning models for postoperative complications in lung resection candidates, suggesting its role in preoperative risk stratification should be re-evaluated.
CPET may no longer add predictive value before lung resection; leaves open whether guidelines should be updated.
RATIONALE: Despite significant advances in patient care and outcomes, criteria for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in risk stratification guidelines for lung resection have not been updated in over a decade. We hypothesised that CPET no longer holds additional predictive value for postoperative complications. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, we included lung resection candidates from two prospective, multicentre studies eligible for CPET and assessed with preoperative pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and arterial blood gas analysis. Postoperative pulmonary (PPCs) and cardiovascular complications (PCCs) were documented during hospitalisation. We trained five types of machine learning models applying nested cross-validation to predict complications and compared predictive performance based on four metrics, including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). RESULTS: A total of 497 patients were included. PPCs developed in 71 (14%) patients. Adding CPET parameters to PFTs and baseline clinical data did not improve the ability of models to predict PPCs in unselected patients (AUC-ROC=0.72-0.78; p=0.47), nor in those meeting American College of Chest Physicians (ACCPs) (n=236; AUC-ROC=0.64-0.78; p=0.70) or European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery (ERS/ESTS) criteria (n=168; AUC-ROC=0.59-0.76; p=0.92). PCCs developed in 90 (18%) patients. CPET parameters likewise did not improve model performance for the prediction of PCCs in unselected patients (AUC-ROC=0.65-0.73; p=0.96), nor in the ACCP (AUC-ROC=0.61-0.73; p=0.82) or ERS/ESTS subgroups (AUC-ROC=0.62-0.69; p=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary surgical practice, CPET did not improve the predictive performance of machine learning models for PPCs or PCCs in patients with an indication based on established guidelines or in those without. The role of CPET in preoperative risk stratification for lung resection should be re-evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03498352, NCT04826575.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filakovszky et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: