Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019

01-09-2019 | Colectomy | Colorectal Cancer

Assessment of the Value of Comorbidity Indices for Risk Adjustment in Colorectal Surgery Patients

Authors: Paul Strombom, MD, Maria Widmar, MD, MPH, Metin Keskin, MD, Renee L. Gennarelli, MSc, Patricio Lynn, MD, J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD, Jose G. Guillem, MD, MPH, Philip B. Paty, MD, Garrett M. Nash, MD, MPH, Martin R. Weiser, MD, Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Comorbidity indices (CIs) are widely used in retrospective studies. We investigated the value of commonly used CIs in risk adjustment for postoperative complications after colorectal surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing colectomy without stoma for colonic neoplasia at a single institution from 2009 to 2014 were included. Four CIs were calculated or obtained for each patient, using administrative data: Charlson–Deyo (CCI-D), Charlson–Romano (CCI-R), Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Outcomes of interest in the 90-day postoperative period were any surgical complication, surgical site infection (SSI), Clavien–Dindo (CD) grade 3 or higher complication, anastomotic leak or abscess, and nonroutine discharge. Base models were created for each outcome based on significant bivariate associations. Logistic regression models were constructed for each outcome using base models alone, and each index as an additional covariate. Models were also compared using the DeLong and Clarke–Pearson method for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, with the CCI-D as the reference.

Results

Overall, 1813 patients were included. Postoperative complications were reported in 756 (42%) patients. Only 9% of patients had a CD grade 3 or higher complication, and 22.8% of patients developed an SSI. Multivariable modeling showed equivalent performance of the base model and the base model augmented by the CIs for all outcomes. The ROC curves for the four indices were also similar.

Conclusions

The inclusion of CIs added little to the base models, and all CIs performed similarly well. Our study suggests that CIs do not adequately risk-adjust for complications after colorectal surgery.
Literature
1.
Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY, et al. Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(2):336–46; e331.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(5):833–42.e1–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Martocchia A, Frugoni P, Indiano I, et al. Screening of frailty in elderly patients with disability by the means of Marigliano–Cacciafesta polypathology scale (MCPS) and Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) scales. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56(2):339–42.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Gupta PK, Franck C, Miller WJ, Gupta H, Forse RA. Development and validation of a bariatric surgery morbidity risk calculator using the prospective, multicenter NSQIP dataset. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(3):301–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gupta PK, Gupta H, Sundaram A, et al. Development and validation of a risk calculator for prediction of cardiac risk after surgery. Circulation. 2011;124(4):381–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Anderson JE, Chang DC. Using electronic health records for surgical quality improvement in the era of big data. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:24–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sharabiani MT, Aylin P, Bottle A. Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1109–18.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(10):1075–9; discussion 1081–90.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Yurkovich M, Avina-Zubieta JA, Thomas J, Gorenchtein M, Lacaille D. A systematic review identifies valid comorbidity indices derived from administrative health data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):3–14.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Holman CD, Preen DB, Baynham NJ, Finn JC, Semmens JB. A multipurpose comorbidity scoring system performed better than the Charlson index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):1006–14.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRefPubMed
15.
van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care. 2009;47(6):626–33.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Schneider EB, Hyder O, Wolfgang CL, et al. Patient readmission and mortality after surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):607–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Connors AF Jr. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations. Med Care. 2001;39(7):727–39.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tan WP, Talbott VA, Leong QQ, Isenberg GA, Goldstein SD. American Society of Anesthesiologists class and Charlson’s comorbidity index as predictors of postoperative colorectal anastomotic leak: a single-institution experience. J Surg Res. 2013;184(1):115–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lieffers JR, Baracos VE, Winget M, Fassbender K. A comparison of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures to predict colorectal cancer survival using administrative health data. Cancer. 2011;117(9):1957–65.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mayo SC, Gilson MM, Herman JM, et al. Management of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: national trends in patient selection, operative management, and use of adjuvant therapy. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):33–45.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Menendez ME, Neuhaus V, van Dijk CN, Ring D. The Elixhauser comorbidity method outperforms the Charlson index in predicting inpatient death after orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(9):2878–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Shin JH, Worni M, Castleberry AW, et al. The application of comorbidity indices to predict early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a nationwide comparative analysis of over 70,000 cases. Obes Surg. 2013;23(5):638–49.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Tan KY, Kawamura Y, Mizokami K, et al. Colorectal surgery in octogenarian patients–outcomes and predictors of morbidity. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24(2):185–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sheetz KH, Waits SA, Krell RW, et al. Complication rates of ostomy surgery are high and vary significantly between hospitals. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(5):632–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Dobbins TA, Creighton N, Currow DC, Young JM. Look back for the Charlson Index did not improve risk adjustment of cancer surgical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(4):379–86.CrossRefPubMed
26.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dekker JW, Gooiker GA, van der Geest LG, et al. Use of different comorbidity scores for risk-adjustment in the evaluation of quality of colorectal cancer surgery: does it matter? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(11):1071–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Thombs BD, Singh VA, Halonen J, Diallo A, Milner SM. The effects of preexisting medical comorbidities on mortality and length of hospital stay in acute burn injury: evidence from a national sample of 31,338 adult patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245(4):629–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Sharma A, Deeb AP, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Monson JR, Fleming FJ. Tobacco smoking and postoperative outcomes after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;258(2):296–300.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9617):1007–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Gandaglia G, Ghani KR, Sood A, et al. Effect of minimally invasive surgery on the risk for surgical site infections: results from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(10):1039–44.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care. 2002;40(8):675–85.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975–2010. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):17–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Assessment of the Value of Comorbidity Indices for Risk Adjustment in Colorectal Surgery Patients
Authors
Paul Strombom, MD
Maria Widmar, MD, MPH
Metin Keskin, MD
Renee L. Gennarelli, MSc
Patricio Lynn, MD
J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD
Jose G. Guillem, MD, MPH
Philip B. Paty, MD
Garrett M. Nash, MD, MPH
Martin R. Weiser, MD
Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07502-9

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Prophylactic Cervical Lymph Node Dissection in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Increases Postoperative Complications and Does Not Improve Survival

Breast Oncology

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Timing and Postoperative Complications

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowships: What Are Programs Looking For?

Gynecologic Oncology

Maximal-Effort Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer Patients with a High Tumor Burden: Variations in Practice and Impact on Outcome

Thoracic Oncology

Treatment-Related Lymphopenia Predicts Pathologic Complete Response and Recurrence in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Endocrine Tumors

Comparing the 7th and 8th Editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Systems for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Improvements Observed and Future Horizons