Read Core Topics in General & Emergency Surgery: Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice Online
Authors: Simon Paterson-Brown MBBS MPhil MS FRCS
Core Topics in General & Emergency Surgery: Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice (75 page)
There is emerging evidence that estimation of serum concentration of biomarkers in the preoperative period may assist risk stratification for patients undergoing surgery. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are the most promising biomarkers for risk assessment. BNP is released from cardiac ventricles in response to excessive stretching and elevated serum concentrations are correlated with prognosis in heart failure.
48
Elevated preoperative serum concentration of BNP (> 40 pg/mL) was associated with an increased risk of death and perioperative cardiac events in a study of 204 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
49
A further study of 190 patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery also identified elevated serum NT-proBNP (a co-secretory product of BNP) as a predictor of postoperative cardiac complications, which was independently prognostic on multivariate analysis.
50
A recent meta-analysis examined the predictive value of preoperative serum BNP concentrations for predicting postoperative mortality and cardiac complications following vascular surgery.
51
The authors concluded that elevated BNP concentrations were predictive of adverse outcome, but there was wide variation in the serum concentration of BNP that was chosen as the threshold for discrimination (range 35–100 pg/mL). The optimal discriminatory concentration remains unknown and it is likely that threshold values may vary depending on the patient group under investigation.
CRP is a marker of systemic inflammation and serum concentrations are associated with atherosclerotic disease and adverse outcomes in cancer. A preoperative serum CRP concentration greater than 6.5 mg/L was associated with increased 30-day mortality and postoperative cardiac complication rates in a study involving 592 patients undergoing vascular surgery (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval 1.5–4.3).
52
Moreover, this association was independent of serum BNP concentration and also established cardiac risk factors. The association between elevated CRP concentration and adverse perioperative outcome may be due, in part, to a correlation between markers of systemic inflammation and exercise capacity. Elevated serum CRP concentrations have been demonstrated to be inversely correlated with VO
2
max in male subjects without evidence of coronary heart disease.
53
Further study is required to determine the true value of serum biomarkers in risk assessment for surgical patients.
Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are the most promising biomarkers for risk assessment. Elevated preoperative serum concentrations have been associated with increased risk of mortality and cardiac complications in surgical patients; however, the optimal threshold cut-off value remains unknown. The real value of serum biomarkers may lie in the selection of patients into high- or low-risk groups and therefore help identify which patients merit further assessment.
The use of risk prediction models, scoring systems, exercise tests and serum biomarkers as adjuncts to decision-making is an increasingly important part of surgical practice. This information must then be communicated effectively to the patient to allow fully informed choice. GMC guidance on this issue states that:
Clear, accurate information about the risks of any proposed investigation or treatment, presented in a way patients can understand, can help them make informed decisions. The amount of information about risk that the clinician should share with patients will depend on the individual patient and what they want, or need, to know. Discussions with patients should therefore focus on their individual situation and the risk to them.
1
In communicating risk there are several techniques to impart the concept of how likely it is that the patient will have a complication of the procedure, or die as a result of it. These broadly fall into using numerical data or descriptive details of risk. As always, this communication must be tailored to the needs and expectations of the individual patient and it is likely that a combination of these techniques will be most appropriate.
Percentages alone are often not well understood, and as they apply to a population rather than an individual patient, they may be misleading. Odds, relative risk and absolute risk may be too complex, but quoting for example ‘a 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 chance’ may be helpful. Using relativity (comparison with a concept the patient understands) or examples (‘of the last 50 patients this has happened to …’) may also clarify the concept of surgical risk to the patient.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the perceived surgical risk that concerns the surgeon is not necessarily what the patient is worried about. Assessing, discussing and communicating risk has the primary aim of allowing patients to understand what may happen to them, and to help them make an informed choice about investigation or therapeutic options. However, as a consequence of this, coupled with careful documentation, it affords the surgeon some protection against litigation.
Key points
Estimation of surgical risk is vital to enhance treatment decision-making and facilitate informed consent, anticipate potential complications and target aspects of care to optimise the patient, and allow meaningful comparison of clinical outcomes, audit and quality assurance.
Determination of surgical risk is complex, but may be more simply considered in terms of
patient-related
risks and
procedural-related
risks.
Patient-related risk factors will be influenced by patient age, comorbidity, the underlying disease process, nutritional status and the performance status of the patient.
Procedural-related risk factors include the grade of severity of the procedure planned, urgency of the procedure, volume of blood loss and other technical aspects.
Risk prediction models and scoring systems (such as POSSUM, ASA and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index) have been developed in an attempt to improve risk prediction. These tools work best for patient populations (groups) rather than individual patients, and therefore their main value is for audit purposes and comparing outcomes between different units and within the same units over time. There is no perfect risk prediction model.
Assessment of functional capacity may be easily undertaken through the use of simple screening questions. More objective measurements may be performed by using standardised walking tests or CPEX testing.
Serum biomarkers, such as BNP and CRP, may have a future role in identifying high-risk surgical patient groups, who may then benefit from more detailed assessment.
Estimation of surgical risk should include a thorough clinical assessment, an assessment of the functional capacity of the patient (through simple questions relating to METs) and should take into account the severity of the surgical procedure proposed. If this process identifies the patient to be at high risk, then further testing should be considered – for example, objective exercise testing (CPEX).
1.
GMC.
Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together
. General Medical Council; 2008.
2.
NICE.
The use of routine preoperative tests for elective surgery
. National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.
3.
Hartley, M.N., Sagar, P.M. The surgeon's ‘gut feeling’ as a predictor of post-operative outcome.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
. 1994;76(6, Suppl.):277–278.
4.
Markus, P.M., Martell, J., Leister, I., et al, Predicting postoperative morbidity by clinical assessment.
Br J Surg
. 2005;92(1):101–106.
15635697
5.
Pearse, R.M., Holt, P.J.E., Growcott, M.P.W. Managing perioperative risk in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery.
Br Med J
. 2011;343:5759.
6.
http://www.riskprediction.org.uk/
; [accessed 25.09.12].
7.
Copeland, G.P., Jones, D., Walters, M., POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit.
Br J Surg
. 1991;78(3):355–360.
2021856
8.
Whiteley, M.S., Prytherch, D.R., Higgins, B., et al, An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system.
Br J Surg
. 1996;83(6):812–815.
8696749
9.
Wakabayashi, H., Sano, T., Yachida, S., et al, Validation of risk assessment scoring systems for an audit of elective surgery for gastrointestinal cancer in elderly patients: an audit.
Int J Surg
. 2007;5(5):323–327.
17462968
10.
Slim, K., Panis, Y., Alves, A., et al. Predicting postoperative mortality in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
World J Surg
. 2006;30(1):100–106.
11.
Tekkis, P.P., Kessaris, N., Kocher, H.M., et al, Evaluation of POSSUM and P-POSSUM scoring systems in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
Br J Surg
. 2003;90(3):340–345.
12594670
12.
Tekkis, P.P., Prytherch, D.R., Kocher, H.M., et al, Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM).
Br J Surg
. 2004;91(9):1174–1182.
15449270
13.
Al-Homoud, S., Purkayastha, S., Aziz, O., et al. Evaluating operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: ASA and POSSUM-based predictive models.
Surg Oncol
. 2004;13(2–3):83–92.
14.
Vather, R., Zargar-Shoshtari, K., Adegbola, S., et al. Comparison of the POSSUM, P-POSSUM and Cr-POSSUM scoring systems as predictors of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.
Aust N Z J Surg
. 2006;76(9):812–816.
15.
Richards, C., Leith, F., Horgan, P.G., et al. Predicting post-operative mortality in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review of the accuracy of POSSUM, P-POSSUM and CR-POSSUM.
Gastroenterology
. 2010;38(5, Suppl. 1):S-853.
16.
Oomen, J.L., Cuesta, M.A., Engel, A.F., Comparison of outcome of POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM scoring after elective resection of the sigmoid colon for carcinoma or complicated diverticular disease.
Scand J Gastroenterol
. 2007;42(7):841–847.
17558908
17.
Bromage, S.J., Cunliffe, W.J., Validation of the CR-POSSUM risk-adjusted scoring system for major colorectal cancer surgery in a single center.
Dis Colon Rectum
. 2007;50(2):192–196.
17164963
18.
Zafirellis, K.D., Fountoulakis, A., Dolan, K., et al, Evaluation of POSSUM in patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing resection.
Br J Surg
. 2002;89(9):1150–1155.
12190681
19.
Tekkis, P.P., McCulloch, P., Poloniecki, J.D., et al, Risk-adjusted prediction of operative mortality in oesophagogastric surgery with O-POSSUM.
Br J Surg
. 2004;91(3):288–295.
14991628
20.
Lagarde, S.M., Maris, A.K., de Castro, S.M., et al, Evaluation of O-POSSUM in predicting in-hospital mortality after resection for oesophageal cancer.
Br J Surg
. 2007;94(12):1521–1526.
17929231
21.
Nagabhushan, J.S., Srinath, S., Weir, F., et al, Comparison of P-POSSUM and O-POSSUM in predicting mortality after oesophagogastric resections.
Postgrad Med J
. 2007;83(979):355–358.
17488869
22.
Lai, F., Kwan, T.L., Yuen, W.C., et al, Evaluation of various POSSUM models for predicting mortality in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy for carcinoma.
Br J Surg
. 2007;94(9):1172–1178.
17520711
23.
Dutta, S., Horgan, P.G., McMillan, D.C., POSSUM and its related models as predictors of postoperative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing surgery for gastro-oesophageal cancer: a systematic review.
World J Surg
. 2010;34(9):2076–2082.
20556607
24.
Prytherch, D.R., Sutton, G.L., Boyle, J.R., Portsmouth POSSUM models for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.
Br J Surg
. 2001;88(7):958–963.
11442527
25.
Grant, S.W., Grayson, A.D., Mitchell, D.C., et al, Evaluation of five risk prediction models for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the UK National Vascular Database.
Br J Surg
. 2012;99(5):673–679.
22415901
26.
Bown, M.J., Cooper, N.J., Sutton, A.J., et al. The postoperative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
. 2004;27(1):65–74.
27.
Kuhan, G., Abidia, A.F., Wijesinghe, L.D., et al, POSSUM and P-POSSUM overpredict mortality for carotid endarterectomy.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
. 2002;23(3):209–211.
11914006
28.
Mosquera, D., Chiang, N., Gibberd, R. Evaluation of surgical performance using V-POSSUM risk-adjusted mortality rates.
Aust N Z J Surg
. 2008;78(7):535–539.
29.
Haynes, S.R., Lawler, P.G., An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation.
Anaesthesia
. 1995;50(3):195–199.
7717481
30.
Mak, P.H., Campbell, R.C., Irwin, M.G., The ASA Physical Status Classification: inter-observer consistency. American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Anaesth Intensive Care
. 2002;30(5):633–640.
12413266
31.
Prause, G., Ratzenhofer-Comenda, B., Pierer, G., et al, Can ASA grade or Goldman's cardiac risk index predict perioperative mortality? A study of 16,227 patients.
Anaesthesia
. 1997;52(3):203–206.
9124658
32.
Glance, L.G., Lustik, S.J., Hannan, E.L., et al, The surgical mortality probability model: derivation and validation of a simple risk prediction rule for noncardiac surgery.
Ann Surg
2012;255:696–702.
22418007
33.
Lee, T.H., Marcantonio, E.R., Mangione, C.M., et al, Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk for noncardiac surgery.
Circulation
1999;100:1043–1049.
10477528
34.
Ford, M.K., Beattie, S., Wijeysundera, D.N., Systematic review: prediction of perioperative cardiac complications and mortality by the Revised Cardiac Risk Index.
Ann Intern Med
. 2010;152(1):26–35.
20048269
35.
Reilly, D.F., McNeely, M.J., Doerner, D., et al, Self-reported exercise tolerance and the risk of serious perioperative complications.
Arch Intern Med
. 1999;159(18):2185–2192.
10527296
36.
Girish, M., Trayney, E., Dammann, O., et al, Symptom-limited stair climbing as a predictor of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications after high-risk surgery.
Chest
2001;120:1147–1151.
11591552
37.
Ainsworth, B.E., Haskell, W.L., Herrmann, S.D., et al, Compendium of physical activities: a second update of codes and MET values.
Med Sci Sports Exercise
. 2011;43(8):1575–1581. [accessed 25.09.12].
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home
38.
Older, P., Smith, R., Courtney, P., et al, Preoperative evaluation of cardiac failure and ischemia in elderly patients by cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
Chest
. 1993;104(3):701–704.
8365279
39.
Wilson, R.J., Davies, S., Yates, D., Impaired functional capacity is associated with all-cause mortality after major elective abdominal surgery.
Br J Anaesth
2010;105:297–303.
20573634
40.
Thompson, A.R., Peters, N., Lovegrove, R.E., et al, Cardiopulmonary exercise testing provides a predictive tool for early and late outcomes in abdominal aortic aneurysm patients.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
. 2011;93(6):474–481.
21929919
41.
Snowden, C., Prentis, J., Anderson, H.L., et al, Submaximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts complications and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing major elective surgery.
Ann Surg
. 2010;251(3):535–541.
20134313
42.
Forshaw, M.J., Strauss, D.C., Davies, A.R., et al, Is cardiopulmonary exercise testing a useful test before oesophagectomy?
Ann Thorac Surg
2008;85:294–299.
18154826
43.
Simpson, J.C., Sutton, H., Grocott, M.P. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing – a survey of current use in England.
J Intensive Care Soc
. 2009;10:275–278.
44.
Singh, S.J., Morgan, M.D., Hardman, A.E., et al, Comparison of oxygen uptake during a conventional treadmill test and the shuttle walking test in chronic airflow limitation.
Eur Respir J
1994;7:2016–2020.
7875275
45.
Whiting, P., Murray, P., Hutchinson, S., et al. The role of the shuttle walking test in predicting mortality and morbidity post oesophagogastric surgery.
Critical Care
. 2005;9(Suppl. 1):P43.
46.
Struthers, R., Erasmus, P., Holmes, K., et al, Assessing fitness for surgery: a comparison of questionnaire, incremental shuttle walk and cardiopulmonary exercise testing in general surgical patients.
Br J Anaesth
. 2008;101(6):774–780.
18953057
47.
Sinclair, R.C.F., Batterham, A.M., Davies, S., et al. Validity of the 6 min walk test in prediction of the anaerobic threshold before major non-cardiac surgery.
Br J Anaesth
. 2012;108(1):30–35.
48.
Maisel, A., Krishnaswamy, P., Nowak, R., et al, Rapid measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide in the emergency diagnosis of heart failure.
N Engl J Med
. 2002;347(3):161–167.
12124404
49.
Cuthbertson, B.H., Amiri, A.R., Croal, B.L., et al, The utility of B-type natriuretic peptide in predicting peri-operative cardiac events after major non-cardiac surgery.
Br J Anaesth
. 2007;99(2):170–176.
17573389
50.
Yeh, H.M., Lau, H.P., Lin, J.M., et al, Preoperative plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide as a marker of cardiac risk in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery.
Br J Surg
2005;92:1041–1045.
15997451
51.
Rodseth, R.N., Padayachee, L., Biccard, B.M., A meta-analysis of the utility of pre-operative brain natriuretic peptide in predicting early and intermediate-term mortality and major adverse cardiac events in vascular surgical patients.
Anaesthesia
2008;63:1226–1233.
18673363
52.
Goei, D., Hoeks, S.E., Boersma, E., et al, Incremental value of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for the prediction of postoperative cardiac events in noncardiac vascular surgery patients.
Coron Artery Dis
2009;20:219–224.
19322079
53.
Kullo, I.J., Khaleghi, M., Hensrud, D.D., Markers of inflammation are inversely associated with VO
2
max in asymptomatic men.
J Appl Physiol
2007;102:1374–1379.
17170204