4.4 Article

Clinical application of the Melbourne risk prediction tool in a high-risk upper abdominal surgical population: an observational cohort study

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 47-53

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2013.05.002

Keywords

Abdominal surgery; Postoperative care; Risk prediction; Pulmonary complications; Physiotherapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives (1) To determine the ability of the Melbourne risk prediction tool to predict a pulmonary complication as defined by the Melbourne Group Scale in a medically defined high-risk upper abdominal surgery population during the postoperative period; (2) to identify the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications; and (3) to examine the risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications in this high-risk population. Design Observational cohort study. Setting Tertiary Australian referral centre. Participants and methods 50 individuals who underwent medically defined high-risk upper abdominal surgery. Presence of postoperative pulmonary complications was screened daily for seven days using the Melbourne Group Scale (Version 2). Postoperative pulmonary risk prediction was calculated according to the Melbourne risk prediction tool. Outcome measures (1) Melbourne risk prediction tool; and (2) the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Results Sixty-six percent (33/50) underwent hepatobiliary or upper gastrointestinal surgery. Mean (SD) anaesthetic duration was 377.8 (165.5) minutes. The risk prediction tool classified 84% (42/50) as high risk. Overall postoperative pulmonary complication incidence was 42% (21/50). The tool was 91% sensitive and 21% specific with a 50% chance of correct classification. Conclusion This is the first study to externally validate the Melbourne risk prediction tool in an independent medically defined highrisk population. There was a higher incidence of pulmonary complications postoperatively observed compared to that previously reported. Results demonstrated poor validity of the tool in a population already defined medically as high risk and when applied postoperatively. This observational study has identified several important points to consider in future trials. (C) 2013 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available