Evaluation of POSSUM for Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy

Comparison of operative morbidity rates after pancreatoduodenectomy between units may be misleading because it does not take into account the physiological variable of the condition of the patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM) for pancreatoduodenectomy patients and to look for risk factors associated with morbidity in a high-volume center. Between January 1993 and April 2006, 652 patients underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy, 502 of them for malignant disease. POSSUM performance was evaluated by assessing the "goodness-of-fit" with the linear analysis method. Overall, 332 of the 652 patients (50.9%) had one or more complication after pancreatoduodenectomy, and 9 patients (1.4%) died. POSSUM had a significant lack of fit using goodness-of-fit analysis. In multivariate analysis, one statistically significant factor associated with morbidity and not incorporated in POSSUM (P < 0.05) was identified: ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.07-2.80). Overall, there is a lack of calibration of POSSUM among patients who undergo pancreatoduodenectom

The Dutch Data Warehouse, a multicenter and full-admission electronic health records database for critically ill COVID-19 patients

Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underlined the urgent need for reliable, multicenter, and full-admission intensive care data to advance our understanding of the course of the disease and investigate potential treatment strategies. In this study, we present the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW), the first multicenter electronic health record (EHR) database with full-admission data from critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods A nation-wide data sharing collaboration was launched at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. All hospitals in the Netherlands were asked to participate and share pseudonymized EHR data from adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Data included patient demographics, clinical observations, administered medication, laboratory determinations, and data from vital sign monitors and life support devices. Data sharing agreements were signed with participating hospitals before any data transfers took place. Data were extracted from the local EHRs with prespecified queries and combined into a staging dataset through an extract-transform-load (ETL) pipeline. In the consecutive processing pipeline, data were mapped to a common concept vocabulary and enriched with derived concepts. Data validation was a continuous process throughout the project. All participating hospitals have access to the DDW. Within legal and ethical boundaries, data are available to clinicians and researchers. Results Out of the 81 intensive care units in the Netherlands, 66 participated in the collaboration, 47 have signed the data sharing agreement, and 35 have shared their data. Data from 25 hospitals have passed through the ETL and processing pipeline. Currently, 3464 patients are included in the DDW, both from wave 1 and wave 2 in the Netherlands. More than 200 million clinical data points are available. Overall ICU mortality was 24.4%. Respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were most frequently measured throughout a patient's stay. For each patient, all administered medication and their daily fluid balance were available. Missing data are reported for each descriptive. Conclusions In this study, we show that EHR data from critically ill COVID-19 patients may be lawfully collected and can be combined into a data warehouse. These initiatives are indispensable to advance medical data science in the field of intensive care medicine.Perioperative Medicine: Efficacy, Safety and Outcome (Anesthesiology/Intensive Care

Multicentre prospective cohort study of nonoperative versus operative treatment for flail chest and multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: study protocol

Introduction A trend has evolved towards rib fixation for flail chest although evidence is limited. Little is known about rib fixation for multiple rib fractures without flail chest. The aim of this study is to compare rib fixation with nonoperative treatment for both patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures.Methods and analysis In this study protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study, all patients with three or morerib fractures admitted to one of the five participating centres will be included. In two centres, rib fixation is performed and in three centres nonoperative treatment is the standard-of-care for flail chest or multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome measures are intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. Propensity score matching will be used to control for potential confounding of the relation between treatment modality and length of stay. All analyses will be performed separately for patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures without flail chest.Ethics and dissemination The regional Medical Research Ethics Committee UMC Utrecht approved a waiver of consent (reference number WAG/mb/17/024787 and METC protocol number 17-544/C). Patients will be fully informed of the purpose and procedures of the study, and signed informed consent will be obtained in agreement with the General Data Protection Regulation. Study results will be submitted for peer review publication.Trial registration number NTR6833Clinical epidemiolog