Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score Predicts Mortality and Anastomotic Leak in Emergency Laparotomy: An External Validation Study.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Wade Hopper, Anthony J Duncan, Mentor Ahmeti
{"title":"Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score Predicts Mortality and Anastomotic Leak in Emergency Laparotomy: An External Validation Study.","authors":"Wade Hopper, Anthony J Duncan, Mentor Ahmeti","doi":"10.1002/wjs.70562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (PESAS) predicts 30-day mortality but has not been externally validated in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients. The study aim was to evaluate PESAS discrimination for predicting mortality and anastomotic leak in patients receiving emergency laparotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated PESAS in a single-center cohort of adults receiving exploratory laparotomy for emergent, nontraumatic indications. PESAS and 30-day mortality were calculated for all patients. Discrimination of PESAS for 30-day mortality was assessed using area under receiver operator curve (AUROC). Secondary analysis was conducted in similar fashion for the outcome of anastomotic leak requiring reoperation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 1086 patients with 160 cases of 30-day mortality (14.7%), PESAS showed strong discrimination for the primary outcome (AUROC 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.88) with acceptable calibration-in-the-large. In an exploratory secondary analysis of 414 patients who received bowel anastomosis with 21 cases of leak (5.1%), PESAS also showed good discrimination for anastomotic leak (AUROC 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.90). Observed mortality rates showed clear inflection points at PESAS values of 5 and 10, respectively, corresponding to mortality exceeding 10% and 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PESAS demonstrates good discrimination, calibration-in-the-large, and net benefit as an ordinal risk stratification tool for prediction of 30-day mortality among patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, with exploratory analysis suggesting promise for predicting anastomotic leak. Because it is derived entirely from objective physiologic variables, it may be well-suited for automated risk stratification in EGS populations. Further patient-level calibration is needed to justify expanded use.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (PESAS) predicts 30-day mortality but has not been externally validated in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients. The study aim was to evaluate PESAS discrimination for predicting mortality and anastomotic leak in patients receiving emergency laparotomy.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated PESAS in a single-center cohort of adults receiving exploratory laparotomy for emergent, nontraumatic indications. PESAS and 30-day mortality were calculated for all patients. Discrimination of PESAS for 30-day mortality was assessed using area under receiver operator curve (AUROC). Secondary analysis was conducted in similar fashion for the outcome of anastomotic leak requiring reoperation.

Results: In 1086 patients with 160 cases of 30-day mortality (14.7%), PESAS showed strong discrimination for the primary outcome (AUROC 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.88) with acceptable calibration-in-the-large. In an exploratory secondary analysis of 414 patients who received bowel anastomosis with 21 cases of leak (5.1%), PESAS also showed good discrimination for anastomotic leak (AUROC 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.90). Observed mortality rates showed clear inflection points at PESAS values of 5 and 10, respectively, corresponding to mortality exceeding 10% and 50%.

Conclusions: PESAS demonstrates good discrimination, calibration-in-the-large, and net benefit as an ordinal risk stratification tool for prediction of 30-day mortality among patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, with exploratory analysis suggesting promise for predicting anastomotic leak. Because it is derived entirely from objective physiologic variables, it may be well-suited for automated risk stratification in EGS populations. Further patient-level calibration is needed to justify expanded use.

生理急诊手术敏锐度评分预测急诊剖腹手术死亡率和吻合口漏:一项外部验证研究。
背景:急诊外科生理灵敏度评分(PESAS)预测30天死亡率,但尚未在急诊普通外科(EGS)患者中进行外部验证。本研究的目的是评价PESAS在预测急诊剖腹手术患者死亡率和吻合口漏中的应用价值。方法:我们回顾性地评估PESAS在一个单中心队列成人接受探查剖腹探查急诊,非创伤指征。计算所有患者的PESAS和30天死亡率。采用受试者操作曲线下面积(AUROC)评价PESAS对30天死亡率的判别性。对需要再次手术的吻合口漏的结果进行了类似的二次分析。结果:在1086例患者中,160例30天死亡率(14.7%),PESAS在可接受的大校准下对主要结局(AUROC 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.88)显示出很强的辨别能力。在一项对414例接受肠吻合术的患者进行的探索性二次分析中,有21例肠漏(5.1%),PESAS对吻合口漏也有很好的鉴别(AUROC 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.90)。观察到的死亡率在PESAS值分别为5和10时显示出明显的拐点,对应于死亡率超过10%和50%。结论:PESAS作为预测急诊剖腹手术患者30天死亡率的有序风险分层工具,具有良好的辨别性、大尺度校准性和净收益,探索性分析提示预测吻合口瘘的前景。因为它完全来源于客观的生理变量,它可能非常适合用于EGS人群的自动风险分层。需要进一步的患者级校准来证明扩大使用的合理性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书