Simplified risk-prediction for benchmarking and quality improvement in emergency general surgery. Prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Emergency General Surgery (EGS) conditions account for millions of deaths worldwide, yet it is practiced without benchmarking-based quality improvement programs. The aim of this observational, prospective, multicenter, nationwide study was to determine the best benchmark cutoff points in EGS, as a reference to guide improvement measures. METHODS: Over a 6-month period, 38 centers (5% of all public hospitals) attending EGS patients on a 24-h, 7-days a week basis, enrolled consecutive patients requiring an emergent/urgent surgical procedure. Patients were stratified into cohorts of low (i.e., expected morbidity risk <33%), middle and high risk using the novel m-LUCENTUM calculator. RESULTS: A total of 7258 patients were included; age (mean ± SD) was 51.1 ± 21.5 years, 43.2% were female. Benchmark cutoffs in the low-risk cohort (5639 patients, 77.7% of total) were: use of laparoscopy ≥40.9%, length of hospital stays ≤3 days, any complication within 30 days ≤ 17.7%, and 30-day mortality ≤1.1%. The variables with the greatest impact were septicemia on length of hospital stay (21 days; adjusted beta coefficient 16.8; 95% CI: 15.3 to 18.3; P < .001), and respiratory failure on mortality (risk-adjusted population attributable fraction 44.6%, 95% CI 29.6 to 59.6, P < .001). Use of laparoscopy (odds ratio 0.764, 95% CI 0.678 to 0.861; P < .001), and intraoperative blood loss (101-500 mL: odds ratio 2.699, 95% CI 2.152 to 3.380; P < .001; and 500-1000 mL: odds ratio 2.875, 95% CI 1.403 to 5.858; P = .013) were associated with increased morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers, for the first time, clinically-based benchmark values in EGS and identifies measures for improvement.

Analysis of outcomes of emergency general and gastrointestinal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Few surgical studies have provided adjusted comparative postoperative outcome data among contemporary patients with and without COVID-19 infection and patients treated before the pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of performing emergency surgery in patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Patients who underwent emergency general and gastrointestinal surgery from March to June 2020, and from March to June 2019 in 25 Spanish hospitals were included in a retrospective study (COVID-CIR). The main outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and failure to rescue (mortality among patients who developed complications). Propensity score-matched comparisons were performed between patients who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19; and between COVID-19-negative cohorts before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Some 5307 patients were included in the study (183 COVID-19-positive and 2132 COVID-19-negative during pandemic; 2992 treated before pandemic). During the pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infection had greater 30-day mortality than those without (12.6 versus 4.6 per cent), but this difference was not statistically significant after propensity score matching (odds ratio (OR) 1.58, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 2.74). Those positive for COVID-19 had more complications (41.5 versus 23.9 per cent; OR 1.61, 1.11 to 2.33) and a higher likelihood of failure to rescue (30.3 versus 19.3 per cent; OR 1.10, 0.57 to 2.12). Patients who were negative for COVID-19 during the pandemic had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.6 versus 3.2 per cent; OR 1.35, 0.98 to 1.86) and complications (23.9 versus 25.2 per cent; OR 0.89, 0.77 to 1.02), but a greater likelihood of failure to rescue (19.3 versus 12.9 per cent; OR 1.56, 95 per cent 1.10 to 2.19) than prepandemic controls. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 infection undergoing emergency general and gastrointestinal surgery had worse postoperative outcomes than contemporary patients without COVID-19. COVID-19-negative patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic had a likelihood of greater failure-to-rescue than prepandemic controls.