0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Death After Colectomy:  It's Later Than We Think FREE

Brendan C. Visser, MD; Hugh Keegan, BS; Molinda Martin, BSN; Sherry M. Wren, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford (Dr Visser), and Palo Alto Veterans Health Care System, Palo Alto, California (Drs Visser and Wren, Mr Keegan, and Ms Martin).


Arch Surg. 2009;144(11):1021-1027. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2009.197.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Clinical outcomes are increasingly subject to objective assessment and professional accountability. Informed consent relies on accurate estimation of operative risk. Current scoring systems for assessment of operative mortality after colorectal surgery (CRS) almost uniformly report 30-day mortality and may not represent true risk.

Design  Prospective cohort.

Setting  University-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Patients  All patients who underwent resections of the colon and/or rectum (as the principal operation) at a single hospital whose data are captured in the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VA-NSQIP) database from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006.

Main Outcome Measures  Mortality at 30 days and 90 days.

Results  The VA-NSQIP cohort included 186 patients who underwent CRS, including 148 patients who underwent elective procedures (79.6%) and 38 patients who underwent emergency procedures (20.4%). All but 8 patients were men, with a median age of 67 years (range, 26-92 years). Laparoscopic operations comprised 24.2% and open operations comprised 75.8%. Most (60.8%) were performed for neoplasms. The actual 30-day mortality rates (all, elective, and emergency procedures) were 4.3%, 1.4%, and 15.8%, respectively. These rates closely mirrored the calculated VA-NSQIP risk-adjusted observed-to-expected ratio for 30-day mortality (4.8%, 1.8%, and 18.2%, respectively). However, mortality at 90 days increased substantially to 9.1%, 4.1%, and 28.9%, respectively.

Conclusion  The 30-day mortality significantly underreports the true risk of death after CRS. The 90-day mortality rate should be included as a standard outcome measure after CRS because it serves as a better estimation of risk for counseling patients.

Figures in this Article

Among the central and immutable elements of medical ethics is the principle that physicians must obtain informed consent from their patients before initiation of any intervention.1 This is particularly true in surgery, where information about the risks and benefits of a procedure is relevant to the decisions of patients as to whether to proceed with the operation and where and from whom they will seek care.2 Simultaneously, there is now, more than ever, a growing emphasis in medicine as a whole on outcomes, quality, and patient safety. Again, this is perhaps more true in surgery than any other arena, where the interventions are the most invasive and the results, both positive and negative, most notable.3,4

Certainly no measure of quality is more concrete, easily quantifiable, or important to patients than postoperative mortality. Accurately quantified and published mortality rates can (1) permit comparisons among surgeons and institutions, (2) serve as a catalyst for quality improvement,5 and (3) facilitate accurate counseling of patients with regard to the risks of any operation.6 Yet there remains no single definition of the duration of time after surgery that encompasses what we call a postoperative death. Although various authors who have described the spectrum of operations have arbitrarily truncated postoperative mortality during the inpatient stay (in-hospital) or at 30, 60, or 90 days, certainly the most common definition remains 30-day mortality. This marker serves as the index in the bulk of articles that describe outcomes after colon resection,79 such as the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VA-NSQIP)10 and the more recent American College of Surgeons Patient Safety in Surgery Study.11 However, there is growing recognition that mortality associated with surgery extends beyond 30 days for a variety of operations.1214 Although 30-day mortality certainly allows comparisons among institutions in efforts to improve outcomes, it may not serve as an accurate number to quote to patients during discussion of the risks of an operation. We hypothesized that the 30-day mortality rate significantly underreports death after colorectal surgery.

This study included all patients who underwent colorectal surgery (CRS) at our hospital whose data were captured in the VA-NSQIP database from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006. The VA-NSQIP prospectively gathers extensive preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data on a random sample of general surgery operations, with approximately 50% catchment in our center. The details of the VA-NSQIP have been described in detail elsewhere.15 Open and laparoscopic colorectal resections were identified based on the Current Procedural Terminology code, with the inclusion of any partial colon and/or rectal resection (open: 44140-44141, 44143-44146, 44160, 45111-2; laparoscopic: 44204-44208), abdominoperineal resection (open: 45110; laparoscopic: 45395), and total colectomy (open: 44150-44158; laparoscopic: 44210-44212). Patients were excluded if the colon resection was performed in the context of another major operation (eg, left colectomy performed with en bloc resection of the tumor in the tail of the pancreas). Among the patients included in the study, deaths were identified via the VA-NSQIP itself (if they occurred within 30 days) and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). The CPRS is routinely cross-referenced to the Social Security death registry, so deaths are accurately captured for this patient population. The mean (SD) length of follow-up for the entire cohort was 2.81 (1.7) years. Deaths were categorized as within 30 days, within 90 days, or in-hospital (before discharge after index operation). The events preceding death, as well as the causes of death, were determined by review of notes within the CPRS and death certificates.

Continuous data were expressed as mean (SD). Groups (eg, emergency procedures vs elective procedures) were compared by means of the Fisher exact test for nominal variables and the t test for parametric variables. The VA-NSQIP uses stepwise logistic regression modeling to predict the probability of complications and death (within 30 days) for patients who undergo general surgery. This is expressed as an observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio. The exact model specifications are not available publicly, although a simplified version is as follows:

where f(x) = −7.89 − (0.62 × albumin) + (0.65 × American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] class) + (0.01 × blood urea nitrogen) + (1.03 × disseminated cancer) + (1.01 × ascites) + (0.03 × age) + (0.56 × emergency).

Therefore, an O/E ratio was available for each patient and can be calculated for the cohort as a whole. These were compared with the observed mortality. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Stanford University institutional review board.

The VA-NSQIP cohort included 186 patients who underwent CRS, with the inclusion of 148 who underwent elective procedures (79.6%) and 38 who underwent emergency procedures (20.4%). All but 8 patients (4.3%) were men, with a median age of 67 years (range, 26-92 years). The indications for surgery are given in Table 1 and are typical of the VA population. The most common indication for surgery was cancer of the colon (n = 79; 42.5%) or rectum (n = 21.2; 11%). The percentage of operations performed laparoscopically was 24.2%, whereas open procedures comprised 75.8%.

The observed 30-day mortality rate for the entire cohort was 4.3% (n = 8), which breaks down to just 1.4% among patients who underwent elective procedures (2 of 148) but 15.8% for patients who underwent emergency procedures (6 of 38). These numbers closely mirror the expected 30-day mortality rate given by VA-NSQIP (which uses preoperative variables for its risk-adjusted modeling) for the 3 groups (4.8% for the entire group, 1.8% for patients who underwent elective procedures, and 18.2% for those who underwent emergency procedures). Seventy patients (37.6%) experienced at least 1 perioperative occurrence as defined by the VA-NSQIP criteria, such as superficial surgical site infections, pulmonary emboli, and unexpected intubation.

Notably, mortality at 90 days increased markedly. The mortality rate for the entire cohort doubled to 9.1% (n = 17), with the inclusion of 4.1% for those who underwent elective procedures (6 of 148) and 28.9% for those who underwent emergency procedures (11 of 38). Patients who died within 30 days were similar to those who died in the subsequent 60 days (Table 2), including with respect to comorbidities and preoperative laboratory studies (eg, blood urea nitrogen, albumin). We included in Table 2 (and subsequent tables) the mean VA-NSQIP probability of complications and probability of death for each group of patients. Although these are calculated values, the model includes a number of preoperative variables that have been previously demonstrated to predict morbidity and mortality. Thus, they serve as useful shorthand “yardsticks” to compare groups of patients. Interestingly, although the major individual predictors that go into the VA-NSQIP model (eg, age, albumin level) are not different between the patients who died at less than 30 days and those who died between days 30 and 90, the VA-NSQIP probability of complications and death suggests that those who died within 30 days were “sicker” going into the operation, with P values that are very close to the <.05 threshold.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Comparison of Patients Who Died at 30 Days or Less With Those Who Died Between Days 31 and 90

Patients who died within 90 days of surgery are compared with the remaining patients in Table 3. Those patients who died within 90 days were significantly older, had a worse preoperative metabolic profile (eg, albumin level, renal function), and a higher mean ASA score. However, those who died were more likely to have undergone emergency surgery (and thus less likely to have undergone surgery for cancer), and the operative time for these patients was somewhat shorter. We also investigated in-hospital mortality (death during the index admission) as an alternative to 90-day mortality. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 7.5%. Four patients died within 90 days but after discharge (1 immediately after a routine clinic visit and 3 in hospice care after difficult postoperative courses). One patient died at day 120 after a long and difficult hospital course.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Comparison of Those Patients Who Died at 90 Days or Less With the Remainder of the Cohort

Mortality increased with age (Figure 1). The mortality rates for patients younger than 60 years (n = 66) was 0% and 3% at 30 and 90 days, respectively, compared with 5% and 8% among patients aged 60 to 69 years (n = 40), 4% and 6% for those 70 to 79 years (n = 47), and 12% and 27% for patients 80 years and older (n = 33) (P < .05, comparing age ≥80 years to each younger group).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mortality at 30 and 90 days, stratified by age.

Graphic Jump Location

The indication for surgery, operation, and postoperative course of those patients who died within 90 days of their operation are summarized in Table 4. Typically, these were elderly (≥65 years of age), high-risk patients who had a series of discrete complications during a prolonged intensive care unit course, which ultimately culminated in multiorgan failure and death. Notably, those patients who died between the 30-day and 90-day marks are essentially indistinguishable from those who died before the 30-day mark quantitatively (Table 2) and qualitatively, with respect to the nature of their postoperative course (Table 4). All but 2 of the patients who died before 90 days of postoperative complications. One patient died on day 25, just 2 days after a routine clinic visit during which he had been described as “recovering well.” His family declined an autopsy, although his physicians thought the death was likely owing to a pulmonary embolus. Another patient, who underwent palliative exploratory laparotomy and bowel resection for an obstructing colon cancer with carcinomatosis, died of progression of his cancer on day 86.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Patients Who Died Within 90 Days

Emergency operations were associated with the highest postoperative morbidity and mortality rates (Table 5). The patients who required emergency surgery were, not surprisingly, “sicker.” They had a worse metabolic profile (eg, albumin level, renal function) and a higher mean (SD) ASA score compared with patients who underwent elective surgery (3.4 [0.7] vs 2.7 [0.6]). After the operation, the emergency patients stayed longer in the hospital, trended toward more complications, and had a mortality rate that was 7 times that of patients who had undergone elective procedures.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Comparison of Emergency to Elective Procedures

In total, 28 patients died during the first year after their CRS procedure (Figure 2). All but 1 of the deaths attributable to the operation itself occurred within 90 days. The deaths from progression of cancer within 6 months occurred in patients who had undergone palliative operations in the setting of known stage IV disease or patients who were found to have carcinomatosis at the time of their operation.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Deaths in the first year after colorectal surgery.

Graphic Jump Location

Since the publication of the scathing 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System,16 there has been ever-growing emphasis on objective evaluation of surgical outcomes as a means to continuous quality improvement. Certainly there is no more basic outcome after surgery than mortality—indisputable, quantifiable, and greatly important. Thirty-day mortality is certainly the most common definition of postoperative mortality in the surgical literature, likely principally because of the ease of following up patients for this short duration. However, in various articles that describe different operations, mortality has also been reported as in-hospital (with the inclusion of deaths only during index admission), 30-day-plus-in-hospital,17 60-day,18 90-day,13 120-day,19 or even 180-day.20 Nonetheless, the 30-day mortality rate for any given operation is the number most often used by physicians, whether to compare outcomes among various institutions or to quote a number to a patient during preoperative counseling.

Fundamentally, little is surprising about the 30-day mortality rate after CRS in our cohort. The observed mortality rate for all patients was 4.3%, with low mortality rates for those who underwent elective procedures (1.4%) compared with those who underwent emergency operations (15.8%). These numbers are consistent with those found in the literature broadly (1.5%-7% for elective colectomy and 12%-25% for emergency colectomy79,21,22) and specifically within the VA system itself.23,24 The risk factors for mortality match those demonstrated in previous studies—advanced age, low albumin level, poor renal function, high ASA score, and emergency surgery. The observed mortality in our small cohort also closely mirrored the risk-adjusted mortality predicted by the VA-NSQIP. The VA-NSQIP database, by virtue of the detail and quality of the data and sheer number of cases, is the most powerful tool available to date for the measurement of surgical outcomes.

Notably, however, the mortality rate for our cohort at 90 days approximately doubled: 9.1% overall, with the inclusion of 4.1% for patients who underwent elective operations and 28.9% for those who underwent emergency operations. The patients who died between days 30 and 90 are relatively similar to those who died in the first month, although perhaps the former were overall not quite as “sick” going into the operation (Table 2). Table 4 is included to more vividly illustrate the characteristics of the patients themselves. Most were elderly or high-risk candidates, and most of the operations were performed for life-threatening emergencies. Most surgeons who perform colorectal resections have undoubtedly had similar patients and are likely not surprised by the outcome of these operations. Thus, it is not the “who” or “why” concerning these deaths that is surprising but perhaps the “when.” As depicted in Figure 2, the number of deaths after CRS that are attributable to the operation itself continue to increase after the traditional 30-day mark. It appears to be elderly patients who are most vulnerable to the slow decrease in health during a protracted hospitalization that leads to these late deaths. Among patients 80 years or older, the mortality rate increased from 12% at 30 days to 27% at 90 days (Figure 1), and 6 of the 9 deaths that occurred between days 30 and 90 happened in patients 79 years or older.

We hoped, in analysis of the deaths in our cohort, to identify a subset of patients who might be identified preoperatively to be better served without surgery. However, when we stratified patients who are intuitively high risk by the predictors that are easily available to physicians (eg, octogenarians who require emergency operations), we did not find a distinct group whom we would a priori exclude from consideration for surgery. Interestingly, however, 5 patients had a VA-NSQIP–estimated probability of death of 0.5 or 50.0% or more. All were in desperate situations: 3 had acute colonic ischemia, 1 had a perforated colon owing to a large bladder tumor, and 1 had fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Four of 5 died within 90 days and the fifth died in the hospital on day 120. Perhaps if the VA- NSQIP calculation was available preoperatively (as it already is for cardiac surgery) by entry of the age of a patient, his or her required laboratory study results, ASA score, and so on into a Web site or smartphone application, the surgeon, patients, and families of such patients might opt for palliative measures instead of surgery. However, the potential usefulness of the VA-NSQIP–calculated probability of death in preoperative informed consent must be studied prospectively before such a recommendation could be made.

Quantification of mortality after any given operation is used in a number of ways. With respect to quality improvement, mortality rates can be used as instruments of progress within an individual hospital or medical system. The VA-NSQIP is a notable success story in this regard, and there is little doubt that the quality of surgical care in the VA system has improved since the implementation of the VA-NSQIP in 1994.10 Similarly, mortality rates are often used to compare outcomes across the whole spectrum of hospitals in an effort to determine predictors of quality. In these settings, mortality at 30 days has proven an adequate data point. Although it is a somewhat arbitrary time point and might not reflect the true mortality after an operation, it serves as a good “yardstick” with which to compare various hospitals. Birkmeyer and colleagues25 address this issue explicitly in their analysis of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome for 2.5 million patients (14 different operations) drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: “While a large proportion of surgical deaths before discharge occurred more than 30 days after surgery, we decided that 30-day mortality alone would not adequately reflect true operative mortality . . . [However] associations between volume and outcome were largely unchanged when we repeated the analysis using 30-day mortality alone.”25(p1129) Therefore, the fact that mortality after colorectal surgery continues to increase after the 30-day mark in this small subset of patients whose data is contained in the VA-NSQIP database (assuming this is true of the wider VA-NSQIP population) does not likely detract from the effectiveness of the VA-NSQIP as a tool for quality improvement.

Mortality rates are at times used to trumpet the successes of individual hospitals26 or surgeons27 who cite low or even zero mortality after complex operations. At times, it is difficult to even find the definition of postoperative in these articles. Moreover, there is growing recognition that for a spectrum of operations, 30-day mortality significantly underestimates the true risk associated with the operation.1214 For example, Mullen and colleagues,13 who described the outcomes after hepatic resection among more than 1000 patients at 4 different institutions, found that mortality increased by 47% when the definition of postoperative was extended from 30 to 90 days. The authors therefore recommend that the standard definition of postoperative mortality after liver resection should include all deaths to a minimum of 90 days. Our results echo this conclusion, albeit for an entirely different group of operations. The 30-day mortality rate after colorectal surgery considerably underreports the true risk of dying after the operation. The 90-day morality rate proved a more accurate representation of the period within which patients died of postoperative complications.

Finally, mortality rates are certainly a critical component of the discussion about informed consent between the surgeon and patient that precedes any operation.2 There is evidence that surgeons likely already understate the mortality rates associated with many operations because of the publication bias in the literature.28 Mortality rates are a bit higher in general practice on a national level than is reported in small case series from centers of excellence. Our data suggest that the use of these oft-quoted 30-day mortality rates further understates the true risk of dying after surgery because the 30-day mark prematurely truncates the postoperative period. A significant portion of patients die after the 30-day mark of causes related to the operation. If, as surgeons obtaining consent before a routine elective colectomy, we quote a 1.4% risk of dying from the operation (the 30-day mortality for elective operations in this series), we would clearly be underreporting the risk of death, given that it increases to 4.1% at 90 days.

This series is a small cohort from a single institution, and the VA population is not entirely reflective of the broader population. Typically, VA patients are older and have more comorbidities, so they may be at higher risk of death at a later time after surgery. However, these data suggest that further investigation of mortality after 30 days among patients in the larger national VA-NSQIP database is warranted. In addition, when possible, surgical investigators in all settings should include both 30-day and 90-day mortality rates when they report outcomes.

In conclusion, in this series of patients who undergo colorectal surgery, 30-day mortality rates significantly underreport the true risk of death after surgery. Ninety-day mortality rates should be included as a standard outcome measure after CRS because they serve as a better estimation of risk when counseling patients.

Correspondence: Brendan C. Visser, MD, Palo Alto Veterans Health Care System, 3801 Miranda Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 (Brendan.Visser@va.gov).

Accepted for Publication: October 6, 2008.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Visser and Wren. Acquisition of data: Visser, Keegan, Martin, and Wren. Analysis and interpretation of data: Visser and Wren. Drafting of the manuscript: Visser, Martin, and Wren. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Visser, Keegan, and Wren. Statistical analysis: Visser. Administrative, technical, and material support: Visser, Keegan, Martin, and Wren. Study supervision: Wren.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Previous Presentations: Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association; February 16, 2008; San Diego, California.

Additional Contributions: Alex McMillan, PhD, provided assistance with statistical analysis.

Berg  JWAppelbaum  PSLidz  CWParker  L Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY Oxford University Press2001;
Jones  JW McCullough  LBRichman  BW A comprehensive primer of surgical informed consent. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87 (4) 903- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Russell  T Safety and quality improvement in surgical practice. Ann Surg 2006;244 (5) 653- 655
PubMed Link to Article
McCafferty  MHPolk  HC  Jr Patient safety and quality in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87 (4) 867- 881
PubMed Link to Article
Rowell  KSTurrentine  FEHutter  MMKhuri  SFHenderson  WG Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (6) 1293- 1300
PubMed Link to Article
Burger  ISchill  KGoodman  S Disclosure of individual surgeon's performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg 2007;245 (4) 507- 513
PubMed Link to Article
Tekkis  PPPrytherch  DRKocher  HM  et al.  Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM). Br J Surg 2004;91 (9) 1174- 1182
PubMed Link to Article
Fazio  VWTekkis  PPRemzi  FLavery  IC Assessment of operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: the Cleveland Clinic Foundation colorectal cancer model. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47 (12) 2015- 2024
PubMed Link to Article
Ferjani  AMGriffin  DStallard  NWong  LS A newly devised scoring system for prediction of mortality in patients with colorectal cancer: a prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8 (4) 317- 322
PubMed Link to Article
Khuri  SFDaley  JHenderson  W  et al. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program, The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 491- 507
PubMed Link to Article
Fink  ASCampbell  DA  JrMentzer  RM  Jr  et al.  The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg 2002;236 (3) 344- 354
PubMed Link to Article
Rice  TWBlackstone  EH Radical resections for T4 lung cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2002;82 (3) 573- 587
PubMed Link to Article
Mullen  JTRibero  DReddy  SK  et al.  Hepatic insufficiency and mortality in 1,059 noncirrhotic patients undergoing major hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (5) 854- 864
PubMed Link to Article
Rouvelas  IJia  CViklund  PLindblad  MLagergren  J Surgeon volume and postoperative mortality after oesophagectomy for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33 (2) 162- 168
PubMed Link to Article
Khuri  SFDaley  JHenderson  W  et al.  The National Veterans Administration Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180 (5) 519- 531
PubMed
Kohn  LTCorrigan  JMDonaldson  MS To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2000;
Biondo  SParés  DFrago  R  et al.  Large bowel obstruction: predictive factors for postoperative mortality. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47 (11) 1889- 1897
PubMed Link to Article
Morino  MToppino  MForestieri  PAngrisani  LAllaix  MEScopinaro  N Mortality after bariatric surgery: analysis of 13,871 morbidly obese patients from a national registry. Ann Surg 2007;246 (6) 1002- 1009
PubMed Link to Article
Roberts  AJWoodhall  DDConti  CR  et al.  Mortality, morbidity, and cost-accounting related to coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 1985;39 (5) 426- 432
PubMed Link to Article
Plomondon  MECasebeer  AWSchooley  LM  et al.  Exploring the volume-outcome relationship for off-pump coronary artery bypass graft procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81 (2) 547- 553
PubMed Link to Article
Dimick  JBCowan  JA  JrUpchurch  GR  JrColletti  LM Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States. J Surg Res 2003;114 (1) 50- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Alves  APanis  YMantion  GSlim  KKwiatkowski  FVicaut  E The AFC score: validation of a 4-item predicting score of postoperative mortality after colorectal resection for cancer or diverticulitis: results of a prospective multicenter study in 1049 patients. Ann Surg 2007;246 (1) 91- 96
PubMed Link to Article
Longo  WEVirgo  KSJohnson  FE  et al.  Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43 (1) 83- 91
PubMed Link to Article
Itani  KMFDenwood  RSchifftner  T  et al.  Causes of high mortality in colorectal surgery: a review of episodes of care in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Am J Surg 2007;194 (5) 639- 645
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (15) 1128- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Seyama  YKubota  KSano  K  et al.  Long-term outcome of extended hemihepatectomy for hilar bile duct cancer with no mortality and high survival rate. Ann Surg 2003;238 (1) 73- 83
PubMed
Aranha  GVHodul  PJCreech  SJacobs  W Zero mortality after 152 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with pancreaticogastrostomy. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197 (2) 223- 232
PubMed Link to Article
Syin  DWoreta  TChang  DCCameron  JLPronovost  PJMakary  MA Publication bias in surgery: implications for informed consent. J Surg Res 2007;143 (1) 88- 93
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mortality at 30 and 90 days, stratified by age.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Deaths in the first year after colorectal surgery.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Comparison of Patients Who Died at 30 Days or Less With Those Who Died Between Days 31 and 90
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Comparison of Those Patients Who Died at 90 Days or Less With the Remainder of the Cohort
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Patients Who Died Within 90 Days
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Comparison of Emergency to Elective Procedures

References

Berg  JWAppelbaum  PSLidz  CWParker  L Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY Oxford University Press2001;
Jones  JW McCullough  LBRichman  BW A comprehensive primer of surgical informed consent. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87 (4) 903- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Russell  T Safety and quality improvement in surgical practice. Ann Surg 2006;244 (5) 653- 655
PubMed Link to Article
McCafferty  MHPolk  HC  Jr Patient safety and quality in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87 (4) 867- 881
PubMed Link to Article
Rowell  KSTurrentine  FEHutter  MMKhuri  SFHenderson  WG Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (6) 1293- 1300
PubMed Link to Article
Burger  ISchill  KGoodman  S Disclosure of individual surgeon's performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg 2007;245 (4) 507- 513
PubMed Link to Article
Tekkis  PPPrytherch  DRKocher  HM  et al.  Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM). Br J Surg 2004;91 (9) 1174- 1182
PubMed Link to Article
Fazio  VWTekkis  PPRemzi  FLavery  IC Assessment of operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: the Cleveland Clinic Foundation colorectal cancer model. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47 (12) 2015- 2024
PubMed Link to Article
Ferjani  AMGriffin  DStallard  NWong  LS A newly devised scoring system for prediction of mortality in patients with colorectal cancer: a prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8 (4) 317- 322
PubMed Link to Article
Khuri  SFDaley  JHenderson  W  et al. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program, The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 491- 507
PubMed Link to Article
Fink  ASCampbell  DA  JrMentzer  RM  Jr  et al.  The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg 2002;236 (3) 344- 354
PubMed Link to Article
Rice  TWBlackstone  EH Radical resections for T4 lung cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2002;82 (3) 573- 587
PubMed Link to Article
Mullen  JTRibero  DReddy  SK  et al.  Hepatic insufficiency and mortality in 1,059 noncirrhotic patients undergoing major hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (5) 854- 864
PubMed Link to Article
Rouvelas  IJia  CViklund  PLindblad  MLagergren  J Surgeon volume and postoperative mortality after oesophagectomy for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33 (2) 162- 168
PubMed Link to Article
Khuri  SFDaley  JHenderson  W  et al.  The National Veterans Administration Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180 (5) 519- 531
PubMed
Kohn  LTCorrigan  JMDonaldson  MS To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2000;
Biondo  SParés  DFrago  R  et al.  Large bowel obstruction: predictive factors for postoperative mortality. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47 (11) 1889- 1897
PubMed Link to Article
Morino  MToppino  MForestieri  PAngrisani  LAllaix  MEScopinaro  N Mortality after bariatric surgery: analysis of 13,871 morbidly obese patients from a national registry. Ann Surg 2007;246 (6) 1002- 1009
PubMed Link to Article
Roberts  AJWoodhall  DDConti  CR  et al.  Mortality, morbidity, and cost-accounting related to coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 1985;39 (5) 426- 432
PubMed Link to Article
Plomondon  MECasebeer  AWSchooley  LM  et al.  Exploring the volume-outcome relationship for off-pump coronary artery bypass graft procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81 (2) 547- 553
PubMed Link to Article
Dimick  JBCowan  JA  JrUpchurch  GR  JrColletti  LM Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States. J Surg Res 2003;114 (1) 50- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Alves  APanis  YMantion  GSlim  KKwiatkowski  FVicaut  E The AFC score: validation of a 4-item predicting score of postoperative mortality after colorectal resection for cancer or diverticulitis: results of a prospective multicenter study in 1049 patients. Ann Surg 2007;246 (1) 91- 96
PubMed Link to Article
Longo  WEVirgo  KSJohnson  FE  et al.  Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43 (1) 83- 91
PubMed Link to Article
Itani  KMFDenwood  RSchifftner  T  et al.  Causes of high mortality in colorectal surgery: a review of episodes of care in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Am J Surg 2007;194 (5) 639- 645
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (15) 1128- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Seyama  YKubota  KSano  K  et al.  Long-term outcome of extended hemihepatectomy for hilar bile duct cancer with no mortality and high survival rate. Ann Surg 2003;238 (1) 73- 83
PubMed
Aranha  GVHodul  PJCreech  SJacobs  W Zero mortality after 152 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with pancreaticogastrostomy. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197 (2) 223- 232
PubMed Link to Article
Syin  DWoreta  TChang  DCCameron  JLPronovost  PJMakary  MA Publication bias in surgery: implications for informed consent. J Surg Res 2007;143 (1) 88- 93
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 29

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles