Key result
SORT predicts noncardiac surgical in-hospital mortality with ~96% discrimination.
Why the study?
The external validity of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) for predicting in-hospital mortality in an Australian private health insurance dataset was unknown.
Does the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) accurately predict in-hospital mortality in an Australian private health insurance dataset for inpatient noncardiac surgery?
Cohort (n=161,277)
Does the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) accurately predict in-hospital mortality in an Australian private health insurance dataset for inpatient noncardiac surgery?
The SORT model showed high discrimination for predicting in-hospital mortality in an Australian private health insurance dataset, but the dataset's low mortality rate suggests it is not representative of the overall surgical population.
SORT may support use in low-mortality private cohorts; leaves open generalizability and calibration in representative surgical populations.
BACKGROUND: We previously conducted a systematic review to identify surgical mortality risk prediction tools suitable for adapting in the Australian context and identified the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) as an ideal model. The primary aim was to investigate the external validity of SORT for predicting in-hospital mortality in a large Australian private health insurance dataset. METHODS: A cohort study using a prospectively collected Australian private health insurance dataset containing over 2 million deidentified records. External validation was conducted by applying the predictive equation for SORT to the complete case analysis dataset. Model re-estimation (recalibration) was performed by logistic regression. RESULTS: The complete case analysis dataset contained 161 277 records. In-hospital mortality was 0.2% (308/161277). The mean estimated risk given by SORT was 0.2% and the median (IQR) was 0.01% (0.003%-0.08%). Discrimination was high (c-statistic 0.96) and calibration was accurate over the range 0%-10%, beyond which mortality was over-predicted but confidence intervals included or closely approached the perfect prediction line. Re-estimation of the equation did not improve over-prediction. Model diagnostics suggested the presence of outliers or highly influential values. CONCLUSION: The low perioperative mortality rate suggests the dataset was not representative of the overall Australian surgical population, primarily due to selection bias and classification bias. Our results suggest SORT may significantly under-predict 30-day mortality in this dataset. Given potential differences in perioperative mortality, private health insurance status and hospital setting should be considered as covariables when a locally validated national surgical mortality risk prediction model is developed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reilly et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in inpatient noncardiac surgery (n=161,277). Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) was evaluated on in-hospital mortality (c-statistic 0.96). The Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) demonstrated high discrimination (c-statistic 0.96) for predicting in-hospital mortality (0.2%) among noncardiac surgery patients in a private insurance dataset.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: