4.4 Article

Ninety-Day Mortality: Redefining the Perioperative Period After Lung Resection

期刊

CLINICAL LUNG CANCER
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 E642-E645

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.12.011

关键词

Perioperative mortality; Risk stratification; Thoracic surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that 90-day mortality after lung resection may be twice that of 30-day mortality, indicating the need to adopt 90-day mortality as the standard measure of perioperative mortality after lung resection and investigate strategies to reduce mortality risk within 90 days of surgery.
Operative mortality is an important outcome for patients, surgeons, healthcare institutions, and policy makers. Although measures of perioperative mortality have conventionally been limited to in-hospital and 30-day mortality (or a composite endpoint combining both), there is a large body of evidence emerging to support the extension of the perioperative period after lung resection to a minimum of 90 days after surgery. Several large-volume studies from centers across the world have reported that 90-day mortality after lung resection is double 30-day mortality. Hence, true perioperative mortality after lung resection is likely to be significantly higher than what is currently reported. In the contemporary era, where new treatment modalities such as stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy are emerging as viable nonsurgical alternatives for the treatment of lung cancer, accurate estimation of perioperative risk and reliable reporting of perioperative mortality are of particular importance. It is likely that shifting the discussion from 30-day to 90-day mortality will lead to altered decision making, particularly for specific patient subgroups at an increased risk of 90-day mortality. We believe that 90-day mortality should be adopted as the standard measure of perioperative mortality after lung resection and that strategies to reduce the risk of mortality within 90 days of surgery should be investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据