PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 21, 2011Postgraduate Medical Journal129 citations

Clinical risk scores to guide perioperative management

View Full Paper
SBSarah BarnettRMRamani Moonesinghe

Key Result

Existing perioperative clinical risk scores have varying validity and limitations, but combining objective clinical variables with novel techniques like biomarker assays may improve predictive precision.

Structured PICO

P
Population
Patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery
E
Exposure
Clinical risk scoring systems (e.g., POSSUM, Charlson Index, Lee Revised Cardiac Risk Index)
O
Outcome
Perioperative morbidity and mortality

Combining objective clinical variables with novel techniques like cardiopulmonary exercise testing and biomarkers may enhance the precision of perioperative risk stratification.

Limitations

  • POSSUM inclusion of intra- and postoperative variables precludes validation for preoperative risk prediction
  • Charlson Index validity varies in different patient cohorts
  • Lee Revised Cardiac Risk Index has limited validity in some patient populations and for non-cardiac outcomes
  • Bespoke systems like ACS NSQIP require considerable resources to implement

Abstract

Perioperative morbidity is associated with reduced long term survival. Comorbid disease, cardiovascular illness, and functional capacity can predispose patients to adverse surgical outcomes. Accurate risk stratification would facilitate informed patient consent and identify those individuals who may benefit from specific perioperative interventions. The ideal clinical risk scoring system would be objective, accurate, economical, simple to perform, based entirely on information available preoperatively, and suitable for patients undergoing both elective and emergency surgery. The POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity) scoring systems are the most widely validated perioperative risk predictors currently utilised; however, their inclusion of intra- and postoperative variables precludes validation for preoperative risk prediction. The Charlson Index has the advantage of consisting exclusively of preoperative variables; however, its validity varies in different patient cohorts. Risk models predicting cardiac morbidity have been extensively studied, despite the relatively uncommon occurrence of postoperative cardiac events. Probably the most widely used cardiac risk score is the Lee Revised Cardiac Risk Index, although it has limited validity in some patient populations and for non-cardiac outcomes. Bespoke clinical scoring systems responding to dynamic changes in population characteristics over time, such as those developed by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, are more precise, but require considerable resources to implement. The combination of objective clinical variables with information from novel techniques such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing and biomarker assays, may improve the predictive precision of clinical risk scores used to guide perioperative management.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Barnett et al. (2011) conducted a review in Perioperative morbidity. Clinical risk scores was evaluated. Existing perioperative clinical risk scores have varying validity and limitations, but combining objective clinical variables with novel techniques like biomarker assays may improve predictive precision.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a20b49852a81c8a3de5237dhttps://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2010.107169
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper