4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

STS Database Risk Models: Predictors of Mortality and Major Morbidity for Lung Cancer Resection

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 875-881

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.03.115

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AHRQ HHS [K08-HS18049] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The aim of this study is to create models for perioperative risk of lung cancer resection using the STS GTDB (Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Database). Methods. The STS GTDB was queried for all patients treated with resection for primary lung cancer between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2008. Three separate multivariable risk models were constructed (mortality, major morbidity, and composite mortality or major morbidity). Results. There were 18,800 lung cancer resections performed at 111 participating centers. Perioperative mortality was 413 of 18,800 (2.2%). Composite major morbidity or mortality occurred in 1,612 patients (8.6%). Predictors of mortality include the following: pneumonectomy (p < 0.001), bilobectomy (p < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiology rating (p < 0.018), Zubrod performance status (p < 0.001), renal dysfunction (p = 0.001), induction chemoradiation therapy (p = 0.01), steroids (p = 0.002), age (p < 0.001), urgent procedures (p = 0.015), male gender (p = 0.013), forced expiratory volume in one second (p < 0.001), and body mass index (p = 0.015). Conclusions. Thoracic surgeons participating in the STS GTDB perform lung cancer resections with a low mortality and morbidity. The risk-adjustment models created have excellent performance characteristics and identify important predictors of mortality and major morbidity for lung cancer resections. These models may be used to inform clinical decisions and to compare risk-adjusted outcomes for quality improvement purposes. (Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:875-83) (C) 2010 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available