KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sağlık Bilimlerinde İleri Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2024 / Volume: 7 Issue: 3

MAJOR ABDOMİNOPELVİK CERRAHİ SONRASI YOĞUN BAKIM ÜNİTESİNE KABUL EDİLEN HASTALARIN ASA SINIFLAMASI VE POSTOPERATİF KOMPLİKASYONLAR AÇISINDAN RETROSPEKTİF DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF ASA CLASSIFICATION’S PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS IN PATIENTS ADMITTED TO INTENSIVE CARE UNIT AFTER MAJOR ABDOMINOPELVIC SURGERY

Emre Sertaç Bingül(İstanbul University, İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology)0000-0002-8662-5380
Ayşe Hızal(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology)0000-0002-8046-757X
Başar Erdivanlı(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology)0000-0002-3955-8242
Hizir Kazdal(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Training and Research Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology)0000-0002-0759-4716
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2024-10-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: 122 gastrointestinal, jinekolojik ve ürolojik cerrahi hastası retrospektif olarak analiz edildi.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Amerikan Anesteziyoloji Derneği Fiziksel Durum Skoru (ASA) postoperatif hastalarda yoğun bakım ünitesi (YBÜ) takibi endikasyonu koymada yararlı bir araçtır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Gereç ve Yöntem: Kasım 2016 ve Şubat 2019 tarihleri arasında üçüncü düzey YBÜ’de postoperatif takibi gerçekleştirilen semi-acil ve acil major abdominopelvik cerrahi hastaları değerlendirildi.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: 122 gastrointestinal, jinekolojik ve ürolojik cerrahi hastası retrospektif olarak analiz edildi.
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Intensive care · major abdominal surgery · major pelvic surgery

Özet

Amaç: Amerikan Anesteziyoloji Derneği Fiziksel Durum Skoru (ASA) postoperatif hastalarda yoğun bakım ünitesi (YBÜ) takibi endikasyonu koymada yararlı bir araçtır. Öte yandan hekimlerin yanlış skorlamaları yatakların gereksiz meşguliyetine ve artan hastane masraflarına yol açabilir. Bu çalışmada major abdominopelvik cerrahi sonrası komplikasyonların preoperatif ASA skorları ile ilişkisi incelendi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kasım 2016 ve Şubat 2019 tarihleri arasında üçüncü düzey YBÜ’de postoperatif takibi gerçekleştirilen semi-acil ve acil major abdominopelvik cerrahi hastaları değerlendirildi. Morbidite ve mortalite ile ilişkili veriler; akut postoperatif komplikasyonlar (hipotansiyon, kanama, desaturasyon, uzamış entübasyon, başarısız “weaning”, akut böbrek hasarı, kardiyak arrest, eksitus), YBÜ takip süresi, tekrarlayan YBÜ yatışları, genel mortalite insidansı ve 30-gün mortalite insidansı şeklinde analiz edildi. Bulgular: 122 gastrointestinal, jinekolojik ve ürolojik cerrahi hastası retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. Hastalar; ASA II (n=59), ASA III (N=45) ve ASA IV (n=18) olarak gruplandırıldı. Genel komplikasyon oranlarında gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık yoktu. Eksitus oranı ASA IV grubunda anlamlı yüksekti (p=0,022). Aynı şekilde YBÜ yatış süresi, YBÜ’ne tekrarlayan yatış ve 30-gün mortalite yine ASA IV grubunda anlamlı yüksekti (p<0,05). Hasta gruplandırması semi-acil (n=87) ve acil (n=35) olarak yapıldığında uzamış entübasyon, desaturasyon ve başarısız “weaning” gibi solunumsal komplikasyonlar, ayrıca YBÜ yatış süresi ve 30-gün mortalite oranı acil vakalarda daha fazlaydı (p<0,001). Yarı-acil onkolojik cerrahilerde YBÜ’de eksitus gözlenmedi. Sonuç: ASA IV major abdominopelvik cerrahi hastalarının postoperatif YBÜ takibinde solunumsal komplikasyonlar açısından diğer gruplar ile fark gözlenmedi. Buna karşın acil vakalarda hem solunumsal komplikasyon hem de mortalite oranları anlamlı yüksekti. Yarı-acil onkolojik cerrahilerde komplikasyonların az olması preoperatif optimum cerrahi hazırlık sağlanması ile açıklanabilir.

Abstract

Objective: The American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Score (ASA) is a useful tool for indicating the need for intensive care unit (ICU) monitoring in postoperative patients. However, physician misclassification can lead to unnecessary bed occupancy and increased costs. This study examined the relationship between preoperative ASA scores and complications following major abdominopelvic surgery. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent postoperative monitoring in a tertiary ICU between November 2016 and February 2019 for semi-urgent and urgent major abdominopelvic surgery were evaluated. Data related to morbidity and mortality were analysed, including acute postoperative complications (hypotension, bleeding, desaturation, prolonged intubation, failed weaning, acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest, exitus), length of ICU stay, recurrent ICU admissions, overall mortality incidence, and 30-day mortality incidence. Results: A total of 122 patients who underwent gastrointestinal, gynaecological, and urological surgeries were retrospectively analysed. Patients were grouped as ASA II (N=59), ASA III (N=45), and ASA IV (n=18). Overall complication rates among the groups did not differ. The exitus rate was significantly higher in ASA IV (p=0.022). Similarly, the duration of ICU stay, recurrent ICU admissions, and 30-day mortality were significantly higher in ASA IV (p<0.05). When patients were grouped as semi-urgent (n=87) and urgent (n=35), respiratory complications such as prolonged intubation, desaturation, and failed weaning, as well as ICU stay and 30-day mortality rates were higher in urgent cases (p<0.001). No exitus was observed in the semi-urgent oncological surgeries in the ICU. Conclusion: No difference in respiratory complications was observed in the postoperative ICU follow-up of ASA IV major abdominal surgery patients compared with other ASA groups. However, both respiratory complications and mortality rates were significantly higher in the urgent cases. The low rate of complications in semi-urgent oncological surgeries can be explained by the optimal preoperative surgical preparation.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bingül, E. S., Hızal, A., Erdivanlı, B., Kazdal, H. (2024). MAJOR ABDOMİNOPELVİK CERRAHİ SONRASI YOĞUN BAKIM ÜNİTESİNE KABUL EDİLEN HASTALARIN ASA SINIFLAMASI VE POSTOPERATİF KOMPLİKASYONLAR AÇISINDAN RETROSPEKTİF DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimlerinde İleri Araştırmalar Dergisi, Volume: 7 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.26650/JARHS2024-1489999

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (24)

  1. Mayhew D, Mendonca V, Murthy BVS. A review of ASA physical status - historical perspectives and modern developments. Anaesthesia 2019;74(3):373-9. google scholar
  2. Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, Tait G, Wijeysundera DN. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth 2014;113(3):424-32. google scholar
  3. Lee A, Lum ME, O’Regan WJ, Hillman KM. Early postoperative emergencies requiring an intensive care team intervention. The role of ASA physical status and after-hours surgery. Anaesthesia 1998;53(6):529-35. google scholar
  4. Helkin A, Jain SV, Gruessner A, Fleming M, Kohman L, Costanza M, et al. Impact of ASA score misclassification on NSQIP predicted mortality: a retrospective analysis. Perioper Med (Lond) 2017;6:23. google scholar
  5. Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, Zehm CF, Shabot SM, Minhajuddin A, et al. Adding Examples to the ASA-Physical Status Classification Improves Correct Assignment to Patients. Anesthesiology 2017;126(4):614-22. google scholar
  6. Lima MJM, Cristelo DFM, Mourao JB. Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity, frailty, and perioperative quality of life in the elderly. Saudi J Anaesth 2019;13(1):3-8. google scholar
  7. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 1996;77(2):217-22. google scholar
  8. Al-Homoud S, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Smith JJ, Thompson MD, Darzi AW, et al. Evaluating operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: ASA and POSSUM-based predictive models. Surg Oncol 2004;13(2-3):83-92. google scholar
  9. Sobol JB, Wunsch H. Triage of high-risk surgical patients for intensive care. Crit Care 2011;15(2):217. google scholar
  10. Lupei MI, Chipman JG, Beilman GJ, Oancea SC, Konia MR. The association between ASA status and other risk stratification models on postoperative intensive care unit outcomes. Anesth Analg 2014;118(5):989-94. google scholar
  11. Hall JC, Tarala RA, Hall JL. Respiratory insufficiency after abdominal surgery. Respirology 1996;1(2):133-8. google scholar
  12. Hackett NJ, De Oliveira GS, Jain UK, Kim JY. ASA class is a reliable independent predictor of medical complications and mortality following surgery. Int J Surg 2015;18:184-90. google scholar
  13. Yang CK, Teng A, Lee DY, Rose K. Pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis. J Surg Res 2015;198(2):441-9. google scholar
  14. Badgwell B, Stanley J, Chang GJ, Katz MH, Lin HY, Ning J, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment of risk factors associated with adverse outcomes and resource utilization in cancer patients undergoing abdominal surgery. J Surg Oncol 2013;108(3):182-6. google scholar
  15. Jakobson T, Karjagin J, Vipp L, Padar M, Parik AH, Starkopf L, et al. Postoperative complications and mortality after major gastrointestinal surgery. Medicina (Kaunas) 2014;50(2):111-7. google scholar
  16. Visnjevac O, Davari-Farid S, Lee J, Pourafkari L, Arora P, Dosluoglu HH, et al. The effect of adding functional classification to ASA status for predicting 30-day mortality. Anesth Analg 2015;121(1):110-6. google scholar
  17. Ong M, Guang TY, Yang TK. Impact of surgical delay on outcomes in elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery: A single center experience. World J Gastrointest Surg 2015;7(9):208-13. google scholar
  18. Sjo OH, Larsen S, Lunde OC, Nesbakken A. Short term outcome after emergency and elective surgery for colon cancer. Colorectal Dis 2009;11(7):733-9. google scholar
  19. Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, Oprian CA, Vernava AM, Wade TP, et al. Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43(1):83-91. google scholar
  20. Ahmed J, Lim M, Khan S, McNaught C, Macfie J. Predictors of length of stay in patients having elective colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol. Int J Surg 2010;8(8):628-32. google scholar
  21. Zerbib P, Kulick JF, Lebuffe G, Khoury-Helou A, Plenier I, Chambon JP. Emergency major abdominal surgery in patients over 85 years of age. World J Surg 2005;29(7):820-5. google scholar
  22. Moreira AdL, Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Remzi FH, Geisler DP, Church JM, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4: the minimally invasive approach is associated with significantly quicker recovery and reduced costs. Surg Endosc 2010;24(6):1280-6. google scholar
  23. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, Gillies MA, Blunt M, Ackland G, et al. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA 2014;311(21):2181-90. google scholar
  24. Horwood J, Ratnam S, Maw A. Decisions to operate: the ASA grade 5 dilemma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93(5):365-9. google scholar