Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

BACKGROUND

Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC).

FINDINGS

In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683-0·717]).

INTERPRETATION

In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required.

FUNDING

British Journal of Surgery Society.

Vasoactive agents in acute mesenteric ischaemia in critical care. A systematic review

Background: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a surgical emergency which has an associated high mortality.  The mainstay of active treatment includes early surgical intervention, with resection of non-viable bowel, and revascularisation of the ischaemic bowel where possible. Due to the physiological insult of AMI however, perioperative care often involves critical care and the use of vasoactive agents to optimise end organ perfusion. A number of these vasoactive agents are currently available with varied mechanism of action and effects on splanchnic blood flow. However, specific guidance on which is the optimal vasoactive drug to use in these settings is limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence comparing vasoactive drugs in AMI. Methods: A systematic search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review was performed on the 5th of November 2020 to identify randomised clinical trials comparing different vasoactive agents in AMI on outcomes including mortality. The search was performed through the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) search support library. Results were analysed using the Rayyan platform, and independently screened by four investigators. Results: 614 distinct papers were identified. After screening, there were no randomised clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: This review identifies a gap in literature, and therefore recommends an investigation into current practice and clinician preference in relation to vasoactive agents in AMI. Multicentre randomised controlled trials comparing these medications on clinical outcomes will therefore be required to address this question.

Vasoactive agents in acute mesenteric ischaemia in critical care. A systematic review

Background: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a surgical emergency which has an associated high mortality.  The mainstay of active treatment includes early surgical intervention, with resection of non-viable bowel, and revascularisation of the ischaemic bowel where possible. Due to the physiological insult of AMI however, perioperative care often involves critical care and the use of vasoactive agents to optimise end organ perfusion. A number of these vasoactive agents are currently available with varied mechanism of action and effects on splanchnic blood flow. However, specific guidance on which is the optimal vasoactive drug to use in these settings is limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence comparing vasoactive drugs in AMI. Methods: A systematic search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review was performed on the 5th of November 2020 to identify randomised clinical trials comparing different vasoactive agents in AMI on outcomes including mortality. The search was performed through the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) search support library. Results were analysed using the Rayyan platform, and independently screened by four investigators. Results: 614 distinct papers were identified. After screening, there were no randomised clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: This review identifies a gap in literature, and therefore recommends an investigation into current practice and clinician preference in relation to vasoactive agents in AMI. Multicentre randomised controlled trials comparing these medications on clinical outcomes will therefore be required to address this question.