Abstract
Background Surgical risk prediction tools can facilitate shared-decision-making and efficient allocation of perioperative resources. Such tools should be externally validated in target populations prior to implementation.
Methods Predicted risk of 30-day mortality was retrospectively derived for surgical patients at Royal Perth Hospital from 2014 to 2021 using the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) and the related NZRISK (n=44,031, 53,395 operations). In a sub-population (n=31,153), the Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality (POSSUM) and the Portsmouth variant of this (P-POSSUM) were matched from the Copeland Risk Adjusted Barometer (C2-Ai, Cambridge, UK). The primary outcome was risk score discrimination of 30-day mortality as evaluated by area-under-receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) statistics. Calibration plots and outcomes according to risk decile and time were also explored.
Results All four risk scores showed high discrimination (AUROC) for 30-day mortality (SORT=0.922, NZRISK=0.909, P-POSSUM=0.893; POSSUM=0.881) but consistently over-predicted risk. SORT exhibited the best discrimination and calibration. Thresholds to denote the highest and second-highest deciles of SORT risk (>3.92% and 1.52-3.92%) captured the majority of deaths (76% and 13% respectively) and hospital-acquired-complications. Year-on-year SORT calibration performance drifted towards over-prediction, reflecting a decrease in 30-day mortality over time despite an increase in the surgical population risk.
Conclusions SORT was the best performing risk score in predicting 30-day mortality after surgery. Categorising patients based on SORT into low, medium (80-90th percentile) and high-risk (90-100th percentile) can guide future allocation of perioperative resources. No tools were sufficiently calibrated to support shared-decision-making based on absolute predictions of risk.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Royal Perth Hospital and the Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol, incorporating a waiver of consent, was approved by the Royal Perth Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee on the 12th August 2021 (RGS0000004853).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
