医学专家对美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器结果的主动脉瘤修复风险评估。

IF 1.4 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
JRSM Cardiovascular Disease Pub Date : 2021-04-08 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20480040211006582
Jan van Schaik, Tessa M Hers, Carla Sp van Rijswijk, Maaike S Schooneveldt, Hein Putter, Daniël Eefting, Joost R van der Vorst
{"title":"医学专家对美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器结果的主动脉瘤修复风险评估。","authors":"Jan van Schaik,&nbsp;Tessa M Hers,&nbsp;Carla Sp van Rijswijk,&nbsp;Maaike S Schooneveldt,&nbsp;Hein Putter,&nbsp;Daniël Eefting,&nbsp;Joost R van der Vorst","doi":"10.1177/20480040211006582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":30457,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","volume":"10 ","pages":"20480040211006582"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20480040211006582","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Jan van Schaik,&nbsp;Tessa M Hers,&nbsp;Carla Sp van Rijswijk,&nbsp;Maaike S Schooneveldt,&nbsp;Hein Putter,&nbsp;Daniël Eefting,&nbsp;Joost R van der Vorst\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20480040211006582\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"20480040211006582\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20480040211006582\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040211006582\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040211006582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:这项在线临床调查研究的目的是比较荷兰参与治疗主动脉瘤患者的血管外科医生、麻醉师和介入放射科医生的风险评估与NSQIP风险计算器结果。方法:采用有目的抽样方法招募的参与者,提供了他们对5例虚构病例主动脉手术后并发症和事件可能性的估计。随后使用NSQIP计算器对这些病例进行评分。风险评估采用方差分析和学生t检验进行统计分析。结果:12名血管外科医生、10名介入放射科医生和10名麻醉科医生完成了调查。在绝大多数结果和小片段中,不同专家之间没有发现显著差异,而在NSQIP风险计算器结果和专家的综合风险评估之间发现了显著差异。总体而言,专家风险评估与NSQIP不同,但与风险计算器相比,既没有特别高,也没有特别低。结论:血管外科医生、麻醉师和介入放射科医生的风险评估结果与NSQIP风险计算器结果在血管内和开放式主动脉瘤修复的框架内存在显著差异。基于这些结果,在术前检查中实施NSQIP风险计算器可以在患者计划和充分告知患者以获得同意方面具有附加价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes.

Methods: Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test.

Results: All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator.

Conclusions: Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
JRSM Cardiovascular Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
自引率
6.20%
发文量
12
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信