Prediction of Mortality in Patients After Oncologic Gastrointestinal Surgery: Comparison of the ASA, APACHE II, and POSSUM Scoring Systems

A New Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients After Intravenous Thrombolysis

Background

We aimed to develop and validate a new nomogram for predicting the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT).

Methods

A retrospective study enrolled 553 patients with AIS treated with IVT. The patients were randomly divided into two cohorts: the training set (70%, n = 387) and the testing set (30%, n = 166). The factors in the predictive nomogram were filtered using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The performance of the nomogram was assessed based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

After multivariable logistic regression analysis, certain factors, such as smoking, National Institutes of Health of Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio (BUN/Cr), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), were found to be independent predictors of ICH and were used to construct a nomogram. The AUC-ROC values of the nomogram were 0.887 (95% CI: 0.842–0.933) and 0.776 (95% CI: 0.681–0.872) in the training and testing sets, respectively. The AUC-ROC of the nomogram was higher than that of the Multicenter Stroke Survey (MSS), Glucose, Race, Age, Sex, Systolic blood Pressure, and Severity of stroke (GRASPS), and stroke prognostication using age and NIH Stroke Scale-100 positive index (SPAN-100) scores for predicting ICH in both the training and testing sets (p < 0.05). The calibration plot demonstrated good agreement in both the training and testing sets. DCA indicated that the nomogram was clinically useful.

Conclusions

The new nomogram, which included smoking, NIHSS, BUN/Cr, and NLR as variables, had the potential for predicting the risk of ICH in patients with AIS after IVT.

Perioperative Risk Stratification: A Need for an Improved Assessment in Surgery and Anesthesia-A Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Numerous scoring systems have been introduced into modern medicine. None of the scoring systems assessed both anesthetic and surgical risk of the patient, predict the morbidity, mortality, or the need for postoperative intensive care unit admission. The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic and surgical scores currently used, for a better evaluation of perioperative risks, morbidity, and mortality. Material and Methods: This is a pilot, prospective, observational study. We enrolled 50 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Anesthetic and surgery risk was assessed using American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale, Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), and Surgical APGAR Score (SAS) scores. The real and the estimated length of stay (LOS) were registered. Results: We obtained several statistically significant positive correlations: ASA score–P-POSSUM (p < 0.01, r = 0.465); ASA score–SAS, (p < 0.01, r = −0.446); ASA score–APACHE II, (p < 0.01 r = 0.519); predicted LOS and ASA score (p < 0.01, r = 0.676); predicted LOS and p-POSSUM (p < 0.01, r = 0.433); and predicted LOS and APACHE II (p < 0.01, r = 0.454). A significant negative correlation between predicted LOS, real LOS, ASA class, and SAS (p < 0.05) was observed. We found a statistically significant difference between the predicted and actual LOS (p < 001). Conclusions: Anesthetic, surgical, and severity scores, used together, provide clearer information about mortality, morbidity, and LOS. ASA scale, associated with surgical scores and severity scores, presents a better image of the patient’s progress in the perioperative period. In our study, APACHE II is the best predictor of mortality, followed by P-POSSUM and SAS. P-POSSUM score and ASA scale may be complementary in terms of preoperative physiological factors, providing valuable information for postoperative outcomes.