A decision rule to aid selection of patients with abdominal sepsis requiring a relaparotomy

Accurate and timely identification of patients in need of a relaparotomy is challenging since there are no readily available strongholds. The aim of this study is to develop a prediction model to aid the decision-making process in whom to perform a relaparotomy. Data from a randomized trial comparing surgical strategies for relaparotomy were used. Variables were selected based on previous reports and common clinical sense and screened in a univariable regression analysis to identify those associated with the need for relaparotomy. Variables with the strongest association were considered for the prediction model which was constructed after backward elimination in a multivariable regression analysis. The discriminatory capacity of the model was expressed with the area under the curve (AUC). A cut-off analysis was performed to illustrate the consequences in clinical practice. One hundred and eighty-two patients were included; 46 were considered cases requiring a relaparotomy. A prediction model was build containing 6 variables. This final model had an AUC of 0.80 indicating good discriminatory capacity. However, acceptable sensitivity would require a low threshold for relaparotomy leading to an unacceptable rate of negative relaparotomies (63%). Therefore, the prediction model was incorporated in a decision rule were the interval until re-assessment and the use of Computed Tomography are related to the outcome of the model. To construct a prediction model that will provide a definite answer whether or not to perform a relaparotomy seems a utopia. However, our prediction model can be used to stratify patients on their underlying risk and could guide further monitoring of patients with abdominal sepsis in order to identify patients with suspected ongoing peritonitis in a timely fashio

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Imaging in Acute Cholecystitis

Purpose: To update previously summarized estimates of diagnostic accuracy for acute cholecystitis and to obtain summary estimates for more recently introduced modalities. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases up to March 2011 to identify studies about evaluation of imaging modalities in patients who were suspected of having acute cholecystitis. Inclusion criteria were explicit criteria for a positive test result, surgery and/or follow-up as the reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 3 2 table. Studies about evaluation of predominantly acalculous cholecystitis in intensive care unit patients were excluded. Bivariate random-effects modeling was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included, with evaluation of 5859 patients. Sensitivity of cholescintigraphy (96%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%, 97%) was significantly higher than sensitivity of ultrasonography (US) (81%; 95% CI: 75%, 87%) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (85%; 95% CI: 66%, 95%). There were no significant differences in specificity among cholescintigraphy (90%; 95% CI: 86%, 93%), US (83%; 95% CI: 74%, 89%) and MR imaging (81%; 95% CI: 69%, 90%). Only one study about evaluation of computed tomography (CT) met the inclusion criteria; the reported sensitivity was 94% (95% CI: 73%, 99%) at a specificity of 59% (95% CI: 42%, 74%). Conclusion: Cholescintigraphy has the highest diagnostic accuracy of all imaging modalities in detection of acute cholecystitis. The diagnostic accuracy of US has a substantial margin of error, comparable to that of MR imaging, while CT is still underevaluated. (C) RSNA, 201

Occurrence and preventability of adverse drug events in surgical patients: a systematic review of literature

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a considerable cause of inhospital morbidity and mortality. Patient flow differs substantially for surgical and nonsurgical patients: surgical patients are subjected to multiple medication changes related to surgical intervention or postoperative care. The objective of this study is to systematically review the occurrence and nature of ADEs in surgical patients. Also, a comparison with nonsurgical patients was made. A search was conducted in Embase and Medline identifying studies that reported observational data on the occurrence and nature of ADEs in surgical hospitalised adult patients. If sufficient data were available, the occurrence of (preventable) ADEs was compared between surgical and nonsurgical patients. Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The occurrence of ADEs in surgical patients ranged from 2.0 to 27.7 per 100 admissions, from 4.7 to 8.9 per 1,000 patient days, or involved 8.9% of the patients. Proportions of preventable ADEs in surgical patients were 18% and 54%, described in two studies. A head-to-head comparison of surgical patients and nonsurgical patients was possible for five of six studies. The occurrence of ADEs in nonsurgical patients was significantly higher than in surgical patients in three studies. ADEs are a relevant problem in surgical patients and nonsurgical patients, with a high proportion of preventable ADEs. The occurrence of ADEs appears to be higher in nonsurgical patients than in surgical patients. However, studies lack details on the differences in nature of ADEs between hospital populations. To improve medication safety this knowledge is essentia

Adverse drug events in surgical patients: an observational multicentre study

Errors occurring during different steps of the medication process can lead to adverse drug events (ADEs). Surgical patients are expected to have an increased risk for ADEs during hospitalization. However, detailed information about ADEs in the surgical patient is lacking. In this study, we aim to measure the incidence and nature of (preventable) ADEs, potential risk factors for and outcome parameters of (preventable) ADEs in surgical patients. Observational multicentre cohort study in which eight surgical wards participated from three Dutch hospitals, all using computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with clinical decision support. Electively admitted surgical patients of the participating wards were included from March until June 2009. ADEs were measured using a standardized method with expert judgment. Incidence, severity, preventability and accountable medication were assessed. Poisson regression analysis was applied to determine the associations between possible risk factors and the occurrence of ADEs, expressed as incidence rate ratio (IRR). Also outcomes of ADEs in surgical patients were measured. The incidence and nature of (preventable) ADEs in surgical patients. A total of 567 surgical patients were included. We found an incidence of 27.5 ADEs and 4.2 preventable ADEs (pADEs) per 100 admissions (15.4 %). A quarter of the pADEs were severe or life-threatening. Opioids and anti-coagulation medication play a major role in the occurrence of ADEs and pADEs respectively. Univariate analysis revealed an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III or more as a risk factor for ADEs. Patients older than 65 years [IRR 2.77 (1.14-6.72)], with cardiovascular comorbidity [IRR 2.87 (1.13-7.28)], or undergoing vascular surgery [IRR 2.32 (1.01-5.32)] were at risk for pADEs. Patients experiencing an ADE had a significant longer duration of admission than patients without an ADE. Surgical patients are at considerable risk of experiencing one or more ADEs during their admission, also in CPOE-hospitals. Risk factors for pADEs are age older than 65 years, cardiovascular comorbidity, and vascular surgery. Intensified monitoring may be needed in patients with a higher than average risk for pADE

A targeted method for standardized assessment of adverse drug events in surgical patients

This study demonstrates the development, reliability and outcome of a targeted method for standardized assessment of adverse drug events (ADEs) in surgical patients. Initial practice evaluation of this ADE assessment method was carried out in a prospective single centre cohort study. In total, 262 electively admitted surgical patients were included. The surgical trigger tool was applied to patients' medical records by two independent reviewers, and subsequent assessment of causality, severity and preventability of ADEs was carried out by two independent expert panels consisting of a consultant surgeon and a clinical pharmacologist. The surgical trigger tool and causality assessment method were each tested on reliability in a separate group of 50 randomly selected patients using Fleiss and Cohen's kappa statistics and percentages of agreement. Comparison of this method with an existing trigger tool method for ADEs was performed. Our surgical trigger tool contains 51 triggers. The inter- and intra-rater calculations showed substantial to almost perfect levels of agreement (kappa range 0.71-0.83), with a 97.8-98.5% percentage of agreement. Fair to substantial levels of agreement were calculated for causality, severity and preventability (kappa range 0.38-0.79). The percentages of inter- and intra-rater agreement were 68.9 and 70.5% for causality, 67.0 and 82.0% for severity, and both 98.4% for preventability, respectively. Compared with the existing trigger tool method for ADEs, we found an additional 363 triggers, 18 ADEs (an extra 20%) and 3 preventable ADEs in our surgical cohort. This targeted trigger tool for standardized assessment of ADEs in surgical patients shows excellent agreement between reviewers. The assessment of medication-related harm had acceptable agreement. Compared with an existing ADE trigger tool method, the present method found almost 20% extra ADEs. This method can be a useful alternative to existing trigger tool methods, in particular to assess medication safety in surgical patient