Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries
- 3.1k Downloads
As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there is a need to define optimal levels of perioperative care. Our aim was to describe the relationship between the provision and use of critical care resources and postoperative mortality.
Planned analysis of data collected during an international 7-day cohort study of adults undergoing elective in-patient surgery. We used risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression models to evaluate the association between admission to critical care immediately after surgery and in-hospital mortality. We evaluated hospital-level associations between mortality and critical care admission immediately after surgery, critical care admission to treat life-threatening complications, and hospital provision of critical care beds. We evaluated the effect of national income using interaction tests.
44,814 patients from 474 hospitals in 27 countries were available for analysis. Death was more frequent amongst patients admitted directly to critical care after surgery (critical care: 103/4317 patients [2%], standard ward: 99/39,566 patients [0.3%]; adjusted OR 3.01 [2.10–5.21]; p < 0.001). This association may differ with national income (high income countries OR 2.50 vs. low and middle income countries OR 4.68; p = 0.07). At hospital level, there was no association between mortality and critical care admission directly after surgery (p = 0.26), critical care admission to treat complications (p = 0.33), or provision of critical care beds (p = 0.70). Findings of the hospital-level analyses were not affected by national income status. A sensitivity analysis including only high-risk patients yielded similar findings.
We did not identify any survival benefit from critical care admission following surgery.
KeywordsPostoperative care/methods Postoperative care/statistics and numerical data Surgical procedures, operative/mortality Critical care/utilisation
This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London. ISOS investigators were entirely responsible for study design, conduct, and data analysis. The authors had full data access and were solely responsible for data interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit for publication.
The authors are happy to consider data sharing requests from bona fide researchers. Participant consent was not obtained but the presented data are anonymised and risk of identification is low. Enquiries should be addressed to the chief investigator at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
RP holds research grants and has given lectures and/or performed consultancy work for Nestle Health Sciences, BBraun, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences, and is a member of the Associate Editorial Board of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All other authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.The Lancet commission on global surgery (2016) http://www.lancetglobalsurgery.org/. Accessed 3 Nov 2016
- 4.Alkire BC, Raykar NP, Shrime MG, Weiser TG, Bickler SW, Rose JA, Nutt CT, Greenberg SL, Kotagal M, Riesel JN, Esquivel M, Uribe-Leitz T, Molina G, Roy N, Meara JG, Farmer PE (2015) Global access to surgical care: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 3:e316–323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Hur K, Demakis J, Aust JB, Chong V, Fabri PJ, Gibbs JO, Grover F, Hammermeister K, Irvin G 3rd, McDonald G, Passaro E Jr, Phillips L, Scamman F, Spencer J, Stremple JF (1998) The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 228:491–507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Pearse RM, Moreno RP, Bauer P, Pelosi P, Metnitz P, Spies C, Vallet B, Vincent JL, Hoeft A, Rhodes A, European Surgical Outcomes Study group for the trials groups of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (2012) Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study. Lancet 380:1059–1065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Findlay G, Goodwin A, Protopappa K, Smith N, Mason M (2011) Knowing the risk: a review of the peri-operative care of surgical patients. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 23.Jammer I, Wickboldt N, Sander M, Smith A, Schultz MJ, Pelosi P, Leva B, Rhodes A, Hoeft A, Walder B, Chew MS, Pearse RM (2015) Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European Perioperative Clinical Outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 32(2):88–105Google Scholar
- 24.Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2012) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. Stata, TexasGoogle Scholar
- 26.World Bank (2016) Classification of national income. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country. Accessed 3 Nov 2016
- 28.Griffiths P, Ball J, Drennan J, James L, Jones J, Recio-Saucedo A, Simon M (2014) The association between patient safety outcomes and nurse/healthcare assistant skill mix and staffing levels and factors that may influence staffing requirements. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar