CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 8, pp 1141–1146

Cirse Quality Assurance Document and Standards for Classification of Complications: The Cirse Classification System

  • D. K. Filippiadis
  • C. Binkert
  • O. Pellerin
  • R. T. Hoffmann
  • A. Krajina
  • P. L. Pereira
CIRSE Standards of Practice Guidelines

Abstract

Interventional radiology provides a wide variety of vascular, nonvascular, musculoskeletal, and oncologic minimally invasive techniques aimed at therapy or palliation of a broad spectrum of pathologic conditions. Outcome data for these techniques are globally evaluated by hospitals, insurance companies, and government agencies targeting in a high-quality health care policy, including reimbursement strategies. To analyze effectively the outcome of a technique, accurate reporting of complications is necessary. Throughout the literature, numerous classification systems for complications grading and classification have been reported. Until now, there has been no method for uniform reporting of complications both in terms of definition and grading. The purpose of this CIRSE guideline is to provide a classification system of complications based on combining outcome and severity of sequelae. The ultimate challenge will be the adoption of this system by practitioners in different countries and health economies within the European Union and beyond.

Keywords

Complications Interventional radiology Grading system CIRSE guidelines 

References

  1. 1.
    Dindo D, Clavien PA. What is a surgical complication? World J Surg. 2008;32:939–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roos LL, Stranc L, James RC, Li J. Complications, co-morbidities, and mortality: improving classification and prediction. HSR Health Serv Res. 1997;32(2):229–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leoni CJ, Potter JE, Rosen MP, Brophy DP, Lang EV. Classifying complications of interventional procedures: a survey of practicing radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(1):55–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pomposelli JJ, Gupta SK, Zacharoulis DC, Landa R, Miller A, Nanda R. Surgical complication outcome (SCOUT) score: a new method to evaluate quality of care in vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25(6):1007–14 (discussion 1014–1015).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 National Cancer Institute; http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf.
  7. 7.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clavien PA, Strasberg SM. Severity grading of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):197–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):177–86. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181afde41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M, Strasberg SM. Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):286–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graefen M. The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):387–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bertges DJ, Shackford SR, Cloud AK, Stiles J, Stanley AC, Steinthorsson G, Ricci MA, Ratliff J, Zubis RR. Toward optimal recording of surgical complications: concurrent tracking compared to the discharge data set. Surgery. 2007;141(1):19–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Jensen JB, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Quality assessment of partial nephrectomy complications reporting using EAU standardised quality criteria. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):522–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tepeler A, Resorlu B, Sahin T, Sarikaya S, Bayindir M, Oguz U, Armagan A, Unsal A. Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system. World J Urol. 2014;32(1):131–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strasberg SM, Hall BL. Postoperative morbidity index: a quantitative measure of severity of postoperative complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(5):616–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenthal R, Hoffmann H, Clavien PA, et al. Definition and classification of intraoperative complications (CLASSIC): Delphi study and pilot evaluation. World J Surg. 2015;39(7):1663–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaafarani HMA, Mavros MN, Hwabejire J, et al. Derivation and validation of a novel severity classification for intraoperative adverse events. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(6):1120–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ouriel K, Fowl RJ, Davies MG, Forbes TL, Gambhir RP, Ricci MA, Society for Vascular Surgery. Disease-specific guidelines for reporting adverse events for peripheral vascular medical devices. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(1):212–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, Herbosa T, Joseph S, Kibatala PL, Lapitan MC, Merry AF, Moorthy K, Reznick RK, Taylor B, Gawande AA, Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111:518–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker JD, Rutherford RB, Bernstein EF, Courbier R, Ernst CB, Kempczinski RF, Riles TS, Zarins CK. Suggested standards for reports dealing with cerebrovascular disease. Subcommittee on Reporting Standards for Cerebrovascular Disease, Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for Vascular Surgery/North American Chapter, International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1988;8(6):721–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hisasue S, Takahashi A, Kato R, Shimizu T, Masumori N, Itoh N, Tsukamoto T. Early and late complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy: experience in a single institution. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34(5):274–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strong VE, Selby LV, Sovel M, Disa JJ, Hoskins W, Dematteo R, Scardino P, Jaques DP. Development and assessment of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s Surgical Secondary Events grading system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(4):1061–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ettorchi-Tardy A, Levif M, Michel P. Benchmarking: a method for continuous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy. 2012;7(4):e101–19.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. K. Filippiadis
    • 1
  • C. Binkert
    • 2
  • O. Pellerin
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • R. T. Hoffmann
    • 6
  • A. Krajina
    • 7
  • P. L. Pereira
    • 8
  1. 1.2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital “ATTIKON”, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensHaidari, AthensGreece
  2. 2.Institut für Radiologie und NuklearmedizinKantonsspital WinterthurWinterthurSwitzerland
  3. 3.Faculté de MédecineUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris-CitéParisFrance
  4. 4.Assitance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Service de Radiologie InterventionnelleParisFrance
  5. 5.Inserm 970ParisFrance
  6. 6.Insitute and Policlinic for Radiological Diagnostic, University Hospital DresdenTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  7. 7.Department of Radiology, University Hospital Faculty of MedicineCharles University in Hradec KraloveHradec KrálovéCzech Republic
  8. 8.Clinic of Radiology, Minimally Invasive Therapies and Nuclearmedicine, SLK-Kliniken GmbH, Academic HospitalRuprecht-Karls-University HeidelbergHeilbronnGermany

Personalised recommendations