4.4 Article

Development and validation of a Score for Preoperative Prediction of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (SPOSA) and its perioperative outcomes

期刊

BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-017-0361-z

关键词

Perioperative obstructive sleep apnea; Prediction; Outcomes; Postoperative respiratory complications; In-hospital mortality

资金

  1. Merck [224941]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Postoperative respiratory complications (PRCs) are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), often undiagnosed in the surgical population, may be a contributing factor. Thus, we aimed to develop and validate a score for preoperative prediction of OSA (SPOSA) based on data available in electronic medical records preoperatively. Methods: OSA was defined as the occurrence of an OSA diagnostic code preceded by a polysomnography procedure. A priori defined variables were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression analysis to develop our score. Score validity was assessed by investigating the score's ability to predict non-invasive ventilation. We then assessed the effect of high OSA risk, as defined by SPOSA, on PRCs within seven postoperative days and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 108,781 surgical patients at Partners HealthCare hospitals (2007-2014) were studied. Predictors of OSA included BMI > 25 kg* m(-2) and comorbidities, including pulmonary hypertension, hypertension, and diabetes. The score yielded an area under the curve of 0.82. Non-invasive ventilation was significantly associated with high OSA risk (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.69). Using a dichotomized endpoint, 26,968 (24.8%) patients were identified as high risk for OSA and 7.9% of these patients experienced PRCs. OSA risk was significantly associated with PRCs (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19-1.43). Conclusion: SPOSA identifies patients at high risk for OSA using electronic medical record-derived data. High risk of OSA is associated with the occurrence of PRCs.

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