Acute kidney injury after thoracic surgery: a proposal for a multicentre evaluation (MERITS).

OBJECTIVES: Because the mortality rate is very low in thoracic surgery, its use as a quality discriminator is limited. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a candidate measure because it is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality and is partly preventable. The incidence of AKI after thoracic surgery is not well documented. We conducted an audit to determine the incidence and outcomes of AKI. This audit became a pilot project, and the results indicate the feasibility of a larger study. METHODS: Retrospective data on renal function post-thoracic surgery were collected at a tertiary cardiothoracic unit over 12 months. Renal impairment was classified according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. RESULTS: Of 568 patients (mean = 59 ± SD 18; 38% women), AKI was diagnosed in 86 (15.1%) within 72 h post-thoracic surgery based on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes staging system (stage 1, n = 55; stage 2, n = 25; stage 3, n = 6). Significant differences were found in postoperative length of stay (3 vs 5 days; P < 0.001) of patients with and without AKI. There was a significant difference between the age groups of patients with and without AKI (P < 0.05) in the open surgical group but not in the group having video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). There was no significant difference in the mortality rates between patients with and without AKI. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AKI after thoracic surgery was 15.1%. AKI was associated with longer hospital stays and was more likely in ≥60-year-old patients after open surgery than after VATS. Reducing AKI could improve patient outcomes. We propose that AKI may be a useful quality measure in thoracic surgery. We are developing a multicentre audit based on this approach.

Should surgeons take a break after an intraoperative death? Attitude survey and outcome evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate attitudes of cardiac surgeons and anaesthetists towards working immediately after an intraoperative death and to establish whether an intraoperative death affects the outcome of subsequent surgery. DESIGN: Questionnaire on attitudes to working after an intraoperative death and matched cohort study. SETTING: UK adult cardiac surgery centres and regional cardiothoracic surgical centre. PARTICIPANTS: 371 consultant cardiac surgeons and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were asked to complete a questionnaire, and seven surgeons from one centre who continued to operate after intraoperative death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome for 233 patients operated on by a surgeon who had experienced an intraoperative death within the preceding 48 hours compared with outcome of 932 matched controls. Hospital mortality and length of stay as a surrogate for hospital morbidity. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 76%. Around a quarter of surgeons and anaesthetists thought they should stop work after an intraoperative death and most wanted guidelines on this subject. Overall, there was no increased mortality in patients operated on in the 48 hours after an intraoperative death. However, mortality was higher if the preceding intraoperative death was in an emergency or high risk case. Survivors operated on within 48 hours after an intraoperative death had longer stay in intensive care (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.52, P = 0.02) and longer stay in hospital (relative change 1.15, 1.03 to 1.24, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Mortality is not increased in operations performed in the immediate aftermath of an intraoperative death, but survivors have longer stays in intensive care and on the hospital ward.