The Elixhauser Comorbidity Method Outperforms the Charlson Index in Predicting Inpatient Death After Orthopaedic Surgery
- 1k Downloads
Scores derived from comorbidities can help with risk adjustment of quality and safety data. The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures are well-known risk adjustment models, yet the optimal score for orthopaedic patients remains unclear.
We determined whether there was a difference in the accuracy of the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity-based measures in predicting (1) in-hospital mortality after major orthopaedic surgery, (2) in-hospital adverse events, and (3) nonroutine discharge.
Among an estimated 14,007,813 patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery identified in the National Hospital Discharge Survey (1990–2007), 0.80% died in the hospital. The association of each Charlson comorbidity measure and Elixhauser comorbidity measure with mortality was assessed in bivariate analysis. Two main multivariable logistic regression models were constructed, with in-hospital mortality as the dependent variable and one of the two comorbidity-based measures (and age, sex, and year of surgery) as independent variables. A base model that included only age, sex, and year of surgery also was evaluated. The discriminative ability of the models was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The AUC quantifies the ability of our models to assign a high probability of mortality to patients who die. Values range from 0.50 to 1.0, with 0.50 indicating no ability to discriminate and 1.0 indicating perfect discrimination.
Elixhauser comorbidity adjustment provided a better prediction of in-hospital case mortality (AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.86–0.86) compared with the Charlson model (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.83–0.84) and to the base model with no comorbidities (AUC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81–0.81). In terms of relative improvement in predictive performance, the Elixhauser measure performed 60% better than the Charlson score in predicting mortality. The Elixhauser model discriminated inpatient morbidity better than the Charlson measure, but the discriminative ability of the model was poor and the difference in the absolute improvement in predictive power between the two models (AUC, 0.01) is of dubious clinical importance. Both comorbidity models exhibited the same degree of discrimination for estimating nonroutine discharge (AUC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81–0.82 for both models).
Provider-specific outcomes, particularly inpatient mortality, may be evaluated differently depending on the comorbidity risk adjustment model selected. Future research assessing and comparing the performance of the Charlson and Elixhauser measures in predicting long-term outcomes would be of value.
Level of Evidence
Level II, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
KeywordsInpatient Mortality Major Orthopaedic Surgery National Hospital Discharge Survey Risk Adjustment Model Elixhauser Comorbidity
- 1.Alosh H, Li D, Riley LH 3rd, Skolasky RL. Health care burden of anterior cervical spine surgery: national trends in hospital charges and length of stay, 2000 to 2009. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 October 16 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Hospital Discharge Survey. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds.htm. Accessed May 6, 2014.
- 8.Dennison C, Pokras R. Design and operation of the National Hospital Discharge Survey: 1988 redesign. Vital Health Stat 1. 2000;39:1–42.Google Scholar
- 16.Gonzalez Della Valle A, Chiu YL, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, Memtsoudis SG. The metabolic syndrome in patients undergoing knee and hip arthroplasty: trends and in-hospital outcomes in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1743–1749 e1741.Google Scholar
- 18.Grendar J, Shaheen AA, Myers RP, Parker R, Vollmer CM Jr, Ball CG, Quan ML, Kaplan GG, Al-Manasra T, Dixon E. Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery: determining the optimal risk adjustment method. Arch Surg. 2012;147:126–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hall MJ, DeFrances CJ, Williams SN, Golosinskiy A, Schwartzman A. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 summary. Natl Health Stat Report. 2010;29:1–20, 24.Google Scholar
- 22.Humphries W, Jain N, Pietrobon R, Socolowski F, Cook C, Higgins L. Effect of the Deyo score on outcomes and costs in shoulder arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008;16:186–191.Google Scholar
- 26.Krupic F, Eisler T, Eliasson T, Garellick G, Gordon M, Karrholm J. No influence of immigrant background on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: 140,299 patients born in Sweden and 11,539 immigrants in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2013;84:18–24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Maradit Kremers H, Visscher SL, Kremers WK, Naessens JM, Lewallen DG. Obesity increases length of stay and direct medical costs in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1232–1239.Google Scholar
- 29.Memtsoudis SG. Limitations associated with the analysis of data from administrative databases. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:449; author reply 450–451.Google Scholar
- 31.Memtsoudis SG, Kirksey M, Ma Y, Chiu YL, Mazumdar M, Pumberger M, Girardi FP. Metabolic syndrome and lumbar spine fusion surgery: epidemiology and perioperative outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:989–995.Google Scholar
- 33.Menendez ME, Neuhaus V, Bot AG, Ring D, Cha TD. Psychiatric disorders and major spine surgery: epidemiology and perioperative outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E111–E122.Google Scholar
- 59.Yoshihara H, Yoneoka D. Trends in the surgical treatment for spinal metastasis and the in-hospital patient outcomes in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Spine J. 2013 pii: S1529-9430(13)01844-5.Google Scholar