What Associations Exist Between Comorbidity Indices and Postoperative Adverse Events After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
8
1
2019
medline:
21
1
2020
entrez:
8
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Comorbidity indices like the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) and the modified Frailty Index (mFI) are commonly reported in large database outcomes research. It is unclear if they provide greater association and discriminative ability for postoperative adverse events after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) than simple variables. Using a large research database to examine postoperative adverse events after anatomic and reverse TSA, we asked: (1) Which demographic/anthropometric variable among age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) has the best discriminative ability as measured by receiver operating characteristics (ROC)? (2) Which comorbidity index, among the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the mCCI, or the mFI, has the best ROC? (3) Does a combination of a demographic/anthropometric variable and a comorbidity index provide better ROC than either variable alone? Patients who underwent TSA from 2005 to 2015 were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). This multicenter database with representative samples from more than 600 hospitals in the United States was chosen for its prospectively collected data and documented superiority over administrative databases. Of an initial 10,597 cases identified, 70 were excluded due to missing age, sex, height, weight, or being younger than 18 years of age, leaving a total of 10,527 patients in the study. Demographics, medical comorbidities, and ASA scores were collected, while BMI, mCCI and mFI were calculated for each patient. Though all required data variables were found in the NSQIP, the completeness of data elements was not determined in this study, and missing data were treated as being the null condition. Thirty-day outcomes included postoperative severe adverse events, any adverse events, extended length of stay (LOS, defined as > 3 days), and discharge to a higher level of care. ROC analysis was performed for each variable and outcome, by plotting its sensitivity against one minus the specificity. The area under the curve (AUC) was used as a measure of model discriminative ability, ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 represents a perfectly accurate test, and 0.5 indicates a test that is no better than chance. Among demographic/anthropometric variables, age had a higher AUC (0.587-0.727) than sex (0.520-0.628) and BMI (0.492-0.546) for all study outcomes (all p < 0.050), while ASA (0.580-0.630) and mFI (0.568-0.622) had higher AUCs than mCCI (0.532-0.570) among comorbidity indices (all p < 0.050). A combination of age and ASA had higher AUCs (0.608-0.752) than age or ASA alone for any adverse event, extended LOS, and discharge to higher level of care (all p < 0.05). Notably, for nearly all variables and outcomes, the AUCs showed fair or moderate discriminative ability at best. Despite the use of existing comorbidity indices adapted to large databases such as the NSQIP, they provide no greater association with adverse events after TSA than simple variables such as age and ASA status, which have only fair associations themselves. Based on database-specific coding patterns, the development of database- or NSQIP-specific indices may improve their ability to provide preoperative risk stratification. Level III, diagnostic study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Comorbidity indices like the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) and the modified Frailty Index (mFI) are commonly reported in large database outcomes research. It is unclear if they provide greater association and discriminative ability for postoperative adverse events after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) than simple variables.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
Using a large research database to examine postoperative adverse events after anatomic and reverse TSA, we asked: (1) Which demographic/anthropometric variable among age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) has the best discriminative ability as measured by receiver operating characteristics (ROC)? (2) Which comorbidity index, among the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the mCCI, or the mFI, has the best ROC? (3) Does a combination of a demographic/anthropometric variable and a comorbidity index provide better ROC than either variable alone?
METHODS
Patients who underwent TSA from 2005 to 2015 were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). This multicenter database with representative samples from more than 600 hospitals in the United States was chosen for its prospectively collected data and documented superiority over administrative databases. Of an initial 10,597 cases identified, 70 were excluded due to missing age, sex, height, weight, or being younger than 18 years of age, leaving a total of 10,527 patients in the study. Demographics, medical comorbidities, and ASA scores were collected, while BMI, mCCI and mFI were calculated for each patient. Though all required data variables were found in the NSQIP, the completeness of data elements was not determined in this study, and missing data were treated as being the null condition. Thirty-day outcomes included postoperative severe adverse events, any adverse events, extended length of stay (LOS, defined as > 3 days), and discharge to a higher level of care. ROC analysis was performed for each variable and outcome, by plotting its sensitivity against one minus the specificity. The area under the curve (AUC) was used as a measure of model discriminative ability, ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 represents a perfectly accurate test, and 0.5 indicates a test that is no better than chance.
RESULTS
Among demographic/anthropometric variables, age had a higher AUC (0.587-0.727) than sex (0.520-0.628) and BMI (0.492-0.546) for all study outcomes (all p < 0.050), while ASA (0.580-0.630) and mFI (0.568-0.622) had higher AUCs than mCCI (0.532-0.570) among comorbidity indices (all p < 0.050). A combination of age and ASA had higher AUCs (0.608-0.752) than age or ASA alone for any adverse event, extended LOS, and discharge to higher level of care (all p < 0.05). Notably, for nearly all variables and outcomes, the AUCs showed fair or moderate discriminative ability at best.
CONCLUSION
Despite the use of existing comorbidity indices adapted to large databases such as the NSQIP, they provide no greater association with adverse events after TSA than simple variables such as age and ASA status, which have only fair associations themselves. Based on database-specific coding patterns, the development of database- or NSQIP-specific indices may improve their ability to provide preoperative risk stratification.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, diagnostic study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30614913
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000624
pmc: PMC6437372
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
881-890Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1449-53
pubmed: 24751531
Iowa Orthop J. 2016;36:70-4
pubmed: 27528839
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Jun 1;43(11):798-804
pubmed: 28922281
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):2099-105
pubmed: 25524429
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 3;96(23):e193
pubmed: 25471919
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):557-63
pubmed: 21324715
Orthopedics. 2016 Sep 1;39(5):309-16
pubmed: 27220114
Bone Joint J. 2016 Mar;98-B(3):425-32
pubmed: 26920971
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jan;24(1):24-30
pubmed: 25168345
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1589-96
pubmed: 24323687
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Mar;474(3):787-95
pubmed: 26452748
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jan;23(1):35-42
pubmed: 24090984
Anaesthesia. 1995 Mar;50(3):195-9
pubmed: 7717481
Circulation. 2007 Feb 20;115(7):928-35
pubmed: 17309939
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Dec;23(12):1867-1871
pubmed: 24957847
Spine J. 2018 Nov;18(11):2009-2017
pubmed: 29649614
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Dec;26(12):2091-2096
pubmed: 28739297
Spine J. 2018 Jan;18(1):44-52
pubmed: 28578164
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 May;32(5):231-237
pubmed: 29401098
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Feb;25(2):193-200
pubmed: 26456427
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Jun;72(6):1526-30; discussion 1530-1
pubmed: 22695416
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1567-73
pubmed: 25953488
Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
pubmed: 7063747
J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):17-8
pubmed: 23608038
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Apr;29(4):856-60
pubmed: 23927910
EJIFCC. 2009 Jan 20;19(4):203-11
pubmed: 27683318
Spine J. 2014 Dec 1;14(12):2923-8
pubmed: 24780248
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Mar;33(3):661-667
pubmed: 29153865
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Nov;47(11):1245-51
pubmed: 7722560