Key result
The Eurolung risk models successfully audited 3 academic centres, revealing significant variations such as Centre 2 having lower-than-predicted morbidity (20.2% vs 26.7%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Can the Eurolung risk models be used to evaluate risk-adjusted cardiopulmonary morbidity and 30-day mortality rates across different thoracic surgery centres?
Population
2,011 patients who underwent anatomical lung resections across 3 academic centres between 2014-2016.
Comparison
Performance evaluation using Eurolung1 and… vs Predicted outcomes based on Eurolung models
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
30-day
Authors
Loading...
May support Eurolung models for thoracic centre benchmarking; extends validation but leaves impact on outcomes open.
Observational (n=2,011)
Yes
Can the Eurolung risk models be used to evaluate risk-adjusted cardiopulmonary morbidity and 30-day mortality rates across different thoracic surgery centres?
The Eurolung risk models can effectively serve as risk-adjusting instruments to internally audit and compare outcomes across different thoracic surgery centres.
Pompili et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Anatomical lung resections (n=2,011). Anatomical lung resections vs. Predicted outcomes (Eurolung models) was evaluated on Risk-adjusted cardiopulmonary morbidity and 30-day mortality. The Eurolung risk models successfully audited 3 academic centres, revealing significant variations such as Centre 2 having lower-than-predicted morbidity (20.2% vs 26.7%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: