4.2 Article

Scores for preoperative risk evaluation of postoperative mortality

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2020.12.005

关键词

risk assessment; organ dysfunction scores; mortality; anaesthesia recovery period; preoperative care; postoperative complications; general surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review evaluates existing preoperative risk evaluation scores for predicting postoperative mortality, identifying 26 scores across 60 reports. For anesthesia practice, the most suitable scores include POSPOM, ACS-NSQUIP, CFS, and ASAPS classification. Other scores should be carefully considered for validity and generalizability.
Preoperative risk evaluation scores are used prior to surgery to predict perioperative risks. They are also a useful tool to help clinicians communicate the risk-benefit balance of the procedure to patients. This review identifies and assesses the existing preoperative risk evaluation scores (also called prediction scores) of postoperative mortality in all types of surgery (emergency or scheduled) in an adult population. We systematically identified studies using the MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and Cochrane databases and published studies reporting the development and validation of preoperative predictive scores of postoperative mortality. We assessed usability, the level of evidence of the studies performed for external validation, and the predictive accuracy of the scores identified. We found 26 scores described within 60 different reports. The most suitable scores with the highest validity identified for anaesthesia practice were the Preoperative Score to Predict Postoperative Mortality (POSPOM), the Universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator (ACS-NSQUIP), the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASAPS) classification system. While other scores identified in this review could also be endorsed, their level of validity and generalizability to the general surgical population should be carefully considered. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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