The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator: development and validation of a tool for identifying African surgical patients at risk of severe postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) showed that surgical patients in Africa have a mortality twice the global average. Existing risk assessment tools are not valid for use in this population because the pattern of risk for poor outcomes differs from high-income countries. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a simple, preoperative risk stratification tool to identify African surgical patients at risk for in-hospital postoperative mortality and severe complications.

METHODS

ASOS was a 7-day prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery in Africa. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator was constructed with a multivariable logistic regression model for the outcome of in-hospital mortality and severe postoperative complications. The following preoperative risk factors were entered into the model; age, sex, smoking status, ASA physical status, preoperative chronic comorbid conditions, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery.

RESULTS

The model was derived from 8799 patients from 168 African hospitals. The composite outcome of severe postoperative complications and death occurred in 423/8799 (4.8%) patients. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator includes the following risk factors: age, ASA physical status, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. The model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.805 and good calibration with c-statistic corrected for optimism of 0.784.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple preoperative risk calculator could be used to identify high-risk surgical patients in African hospitals and facilitate increased postoperative surveillance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03044899.

A randomised prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery

OBJECTIVE

To compare assisted vaginal delivery by forceps with delivery by vacuum extractor, where a new vacuum extractor policy was employed which dictated the cup to be used in specific situations.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four district general hospitals in the West Midlands.

SUBJECTS

Six hundred-seven women requiring assisted vaginal delivery, of whom 296 were allocated to vacuum extractor delivery and 311 to forceps.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Delivery success rate, maternal perineal and vaginal injuries, maternal anaesthetic requirements, neonatal scalp and facial injuries.

RESULTS

Of the vacuum extractor group, 85% were delivered by the allocated instrument compared to 90% in the forceps group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.4-1.04). However, more women in the vacuum extractor group were delivered vaginally (98%) than in the forceps group (96%). There were significantly fewer women with anal sphincter damage or upper vaginal extensions in the vacuum extractor group (11% vs 17%, OR 0.6; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97). There were significantly fewer women in the vacuum extractor group requiring epidural or spinal anaesthetics (25.4% vs 32.7%, OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.99) or general anaesthetics (1% vs 4%, OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.04-0.76). Although there were significantly more babies in the vacuum extractor group with cephalhaematomata (9% vs 3%, OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.4-7.4) there were fewer babies in the vacuum extractor group with other facial injuries. There were three babies in the forceps group with unexplained neonatal convulsions.

CONCLUSIONS

Assisted vaginal delivery using the new vacuum extractor policy is associated with significantly less maternal trauma than with forceps. Further studies are required to assess neonatal morbidity adequately.