Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Emergency General Surgery (EGS) Risk Stratification Scores

  • Emergency General Surgery (J Diaz, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Risk stratification is an important metric for a mature surgical system. It not only is the development of comparative outcome data but serves as an important tool for is a tool for goal concordant care discussions with patients. As we move to an Emergency General Surgery (EGS) regional system that mirrors the existing trauma system risk stratification will allow for triage of high-risk patients to receive appropriate preoperative and postoperative care. Evidence has shown that the EGS population has unique physiology with markedly different outcomes than their elective counterparts. The tools we use to measure the outcomes in this challenging population are still evolving. An ideal risk stratification system will provide accurate prediction from readily obtainable objective data in all populations and can be used easily in clinical practice. There are many different types of risk stratification systems which use a combination of patient comorbidity, physiology, and disease mechanism to predict outcomes, with varying levels of accuracy. An ideal tool would incorporate variables from all these non-modifiable factors yet still be easy enough to use in real time by the clinician.

Purpose of Review

Currently there is no idealized EGS risk stratification system. An ideal model may combine comorbidity factors, physiologic factors, and emergent pathology factors to clarify the degree of severity based more on a mechanistic model. Here in, we review the existing literature on the above factors and propose the direction EGS risk stratification may take in the future.

Recent Findings

There are many different scoring systems providing stratification of risk in EGS patients created over the previous 80 years. Accuracy of outcome prediction varies based on the system chosen and the components the system uses. As prediction models become more accurate, the complexity typically increases. Recent literature suggests that linear regression for prediction of outcomes may not be the most accurate risk stratification technique. Further research is necessary to determine which outcomes bear the most clinical significance. Benchmarking EGS systems by risk stratification of outcomes also requires further analysis.

Summary

Each risk stratification system has advantages and disadvantages to use. Pathology in EGS patients suggests outcomes are dependent on the mechanism of disease, physiology of patients on presentation, as well as current comorbidities. An idealized EGS risk stratification system will provide accurate prediction from readily obtainable objective data in all EGS populations and can be used easily in clinical practice. Further research is necessary to provide integration of these factors into a user-friendly and easily applicable interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Hansted AK, Møller MH, Møller AM, Vester-Andersen M. APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;64(2):180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Havens JM, Neiman PU, Campbell BL, Croce MA, Spain DA, Napolitano LM. The future of emergency general surgery. Ann Surg. 2019;270(2):221–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clark DE, Winchell RJ. Risk adjustment for injured patients using administrative data. J Trauma. 2004;57(1):130–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Havens JM, Columbus AB, Seshadri AJ, et al. Risk stratification tools in emergency general surgery. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2018;3(1):e000160. This article aimed to facilitate reliable scoring for risk stratification, outcome analysis, quality improvement and resource management in emergency general surgery.

  5. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941;2(3):281–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vacanti CJ, VanHouten RJ, Hill RC. A statistical analysis of the relationship of physical status to postoperative mortality in 68,388 cases. Anesth Analg. 1970;49(4):564.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sangji NF, Bohnen JD, Ramly EP, et al. Derivation and validation of a novel Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (ESAS). J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81(2):213–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anbalakan K, Chua D, Pandya GJ, Shelat VG. Five year experience in management of perforated peptic ulcer and validation of common mortality risk prediction models – Are existing models sufficient? A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg (London, England). 2015;14:38–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(5):373.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. • Vaid S. Predicting risk of death in general surgery patients on the basis of preoperative variables using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data. Permanente J. 2012;16(4):10–7. This article determined a preoperative mortality predictor score is an accurate and simple tool for predicting operative survival or dialysis using only preoperative variables.

  12. Devita MA, Bellomo R, Hillman K, et al. Findings of the first consensus conference on medical emergency teams. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(9):2463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nair A, Bharuka A, Rayani BK. The reliability of surgical Apgar score in predicting immediate and late postoperative morbidity and mortality: a narrative review. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2018;9(1):e0004.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sadaka F, EthmaneAbouElMaali C, Cytron MA, Fowler K, Javaux VM, O’Brien J. Predicting mortality of patients with sepsis: a comparison of APACHE II and APACHE III Scoring Systems. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(11):907–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook R, Cook D, Tilley J, Lee K, Marshall J. Multiple organ dysfunction: baseline and serial component scores. Critic Care Med. 2001;29(11):2046.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ. Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(10):1638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Allyn J, Ferdynus C, Bohrer M, Dalban C, Valance D, Allou N. Simplified Acute Physiology Score II as predictor of mortality in intensive care units: a decision curve analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0164828.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993;270(24):2957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gawande AA, Kwaan MR, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SA, Zinner MJ. An Apgar score for surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(2):201–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haddow JB, Adwan H, Clark SE, et al. Use of the surgical Apgar score to guide postoperative care. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(5):352–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. • Trauma. TAAftSo. Data Dictionaries for AAST Grading System for EGS Conditions. https://www.aast.org/emergency-general-surgery-anatomic-grading-scales. Accessed 2020. This article reviewed the AAST Grading System for EGS conditions.

  23. •• Crandall ML, Agarwal S, Muskat P, et al. Application of a uniform anatomic grading system to measure disease severity in eight emergency general surgical illnesses. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(5):705–8. This article provided a uniform grading system for measuring anatomic severity of eight emergent general surgical diseases.

  24. Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK. Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg (Chicago). 1978;12:85.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yokoe M, Hata J, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):41–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hernandez M, Murphy B, Aho JM, et al. Validation of the AAST EGS acute cholecystitis grade and comparison with the Tokyo guidelines. Surgery. 2018;163(4):739–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hernandez MC, Aho JM, Habermann EB, Choudhry AJ, Morris DS, Zielinski MD. Increased anatomic severity predicts outcomes: Validation of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma’s Emergency General Surgery score in appendicitis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(1):73–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hernandez MC, Birindelli A, Bruce JL, et al. Application of the AAST EGS grade for adhesive small bowel obstruction to a multi-national patient population. World J Surg. 2018;42(11):3581–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hernandez MC, Thorn MJ, Kong VY, et al. Validation of the AAST EGS grading system for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Surgery. 2018;164(4):738–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Savage SA, Klekar CS, Priest EL, et al. Validating a new grading scale for emergency general surgery diseases. J Surg Res. 2015;196(2):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shafi S, Priest EL, Crandall ML, et al. Multicenter validation of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading system for acute colonic diverticulitis and its use for emergency general surgery quality improvement program. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(3):405–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Younis M, Hernandez M, Ray-Zack M, et al. Validation of AAST EGS grade for acute pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(3):430–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Utter GH, Miller PR, Mowery NT, et al. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM mapping of the AAST Emergency General Surgery disease severity grading systems: conceptual approach, limitations, and recommendations for the future. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(5):1059–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78(3):355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Story DA, Fink M, Leslie K, et al. Perioperative mortality risk score using pre- and post-operative risk factors in older patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2019;37(3):392–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hadjianastassiou VG, Tekkis PP, Poloniecki JD, Gavalas MC, Goldhill DR. Surgical mortality score: risk management tool for auditing surgical performance. World J Surg. 2004;28(2):193–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Protopapa KL, Simpson JC, Smith NCE, Moonesinghe SR. Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). Br J Surg. 2014;101(13):1774–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sutton R, Bann S, Brooks M, Sarin S. The surgical risk scale as an improved tool for risk-adjusted analysis in comparative surgical audit. Br J Surg. 2002;89(6):763–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Donati A, Ruzzi M, Adrario E, et al. A new and feasible model for predicting operative risk. Br J Anaesthesia. 2004;93(3):393–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and Evaluation of the Universal ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(5):833-842.e833.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Fuchshuber P. The power of the national surgical quality improvement program—achieving a zero pneumonia rate in general surgery patients. Permanente J. 2012;16(1):39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen MEP, Bilimoria KYMDMS, Ko CYMDMSMF, Hall BLMDPMBAF. Development of an American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program: Morbidity and Mortality Risk Calculator for Colorectal Surgery. J Am College Surg. 2009;208(6):1009–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sangji NF, Bohnen JD, Ramly EP, Velmahos GC, Chang DC, Kaafarani HMA. Derivation and validation of a novel Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (PESAS). World J Surg. 2017;41(7):1782–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Basta MN, Bauder AR, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. Assessing the predictive accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Surgical Risk Calculator in open ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):272–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mogal HD, Fino N, Clark C, Shen P. Comparison of observed to predicted outcomes using the ACS NSQIP risk calculator in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(2):157–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hyder JA, Reznor G, Wakeam E, Nguyen LL, Lipsitz SR, Havens JM. Risk prediction accuracy differs for emergency versus elective cases in the ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):959–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Burgess JR, Smith B, Britt R, Weireter L, Polk T. Predicting postoperative complications for acute care surgery patients using the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. Am Surg. 2017;83(7):733–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Feeney T, Castillo-Angeles M, Scott JW, et al. The independent effect of emergency general surgery on outcomes varies depending on case type: a NSQIP outcomes study. Am J Surg. 2018;216(5):856–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • Golden DL, Ata A, Kusupati V, et al. Predicting postoperative complications after acute care surgery: how accurate is the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator? Am Surg. 2019;85(4):335–41. This article attempted to validate NSQIP surgical risk calculator-predicted outcomes by comparing them with observed outcomes in acute care surgery patients. They found that the surgical risk calculator performs well at predicting overall complications.

  50. Kongwibulwut M, Chiang K, Lee JM, et al. Life after 90: predictors of mortality and performance of the ACS-NSQIP risk calculator in 4,724 nonagenarian patients undergoing emergency general surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(5):853–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. • Long AM, Hildreth AN, Davis PT, Ur R, Badger AT, Miller PR. Evaluation of the performance of ACS nsqip surgical risk calculator in emergency general surgery patients. Am Surg. 2020;86(2):83–9. This article attempted to validate the accuracy of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator in emergency general surgery population compared with predicted risk.

  52. Scarborough JEMDF, Schumacher JP, Pappas TNMDF, et al. Which complications matter most? Prioritizing quality improvement in emergency general surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(4):515–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. •• Kaafarani HMA, Kongkaewpaisan N, Aicher BO, et al. Prospective validation of the Emergency Surgery Score in emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(1):118–24. This was a multi-center prospective study which sought to prospectively validate the Emergency Surgery Score in high-risk non-trauma emergency laparotomy patients.

  54. Han K, Lee JM, Achanta A, et al. Emergency surgery score accurately predicts the risk of post-operative infection in emergency general surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2019;20(1):4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nandan AR, Bohnen JD, Sangji NF, Kaafarani HMA. The Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) accurately predicts the occurrence of postoperative complications in emergency surgery patients: A reply. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(4):825.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sangji N, Sangji N, Chang D, Chang D, Kaafarani HMA, Kaafarani HMA. Derivation and validation of a novel Physiological Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (PESAS): reply. World J Surg. 2018;42(5):1569–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. •• Bertsimas D, Dunn J, Velmahos GC, Kaafarani HMA. Surgical risk is not linear: derivation and validation of a novel, user-friendly, and machine-learning-based predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) calculator. Ann Surg. 2018;268(4):574–83. This study sought to develop an interactive, non-linear risk calculator for emergency surgery which resulted in the development of POTTER, a highly-accurate and user-friendly emergency surgery risk calculator which improves accuracy over time with ongoing machine-learning.

  58. Eliezer DD, Holmes M, Sullivan G, et al. High-risk emergency laparotomy in australia: comparing NELA, P-POSSUM, and ACS-NSQIP calculators. J Surg Res. 2020;246:300–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/APACHE-II-Acute-Physiology-and-Chronic-Health-Evaluation_tbl3_5798730

  60. Keller DS, Ho JW, Mercadel AJ, Ogola GO, Steele SR. Are we taking a risk with risk assessment tools? Evaluating the relationship between NSQIP and the ACS risk calculator in colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2018;216(4):645–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cologne KG, Keller DS, Liwanag L, Devaraj B, Senagore AJ. Use of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator for laparoscopic colectomy: how good is it and how can we improve it? J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(3):281–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Matthew D. Painter, Rachel D. Appelbaum, Christian A. Pothering, W. T. Hillman Terzian & Nathan T. Mowery

Authors
  1. Matthew D. Painter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel D. Appelbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian A. Pothering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. T. Hillman Terzian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nathan T. Mowery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan T. Mowery.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Emergency General Surgery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Painter, M.D., Appelbaum, R.D., Pothering, C.A. et al. Emergency General Surgery (EGS) Risk Stratification Scores. Curr Surg Rep 9, 10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00281-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00281-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation