Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Editorial

Risk prediction instruments to guide perioperative care in elderly patients with advanced disease

A basic necessity

Pinto, Bernardo Bollen; Rached, Mohamed Aymen Kraiem Ben; Walder, Bernhard

Author Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology: December 2016 - Volume 33 - Issue 12 - p 875-877
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000502
  • Free

High-income countries are faced with increasingly ageing populations because of rising life expectancy and decreasing fertility rates.1 This relates to a growing number of elderly patients (commonly defined for research purposes as those older than 60 or 65 years of age) being treated in acute care hospitals.2

These elderly patients, many of whom are frail, can have considerable comorbidities, reduced physical activity and cognitive impairment. Pre-existing comorbidities are related to postinterventional complications. Therefore, even minor surgical interventions or nonsurgical procedures may have considerable postinterventional complications, including death.3,4

Most of these elderly patients can be treated successfully with an adequate strategy, including early identification of patients at risk, interdisciplinary management, adequate preparation, well established clinical pathways, adapted minimally invasive interventions, preventive perioperative procedures and monitored structures with sufficient numbers of well trained nurses. These supplementary care processes and interventions during the perioperative period, increasingly referred to as ‘perioperative medicine’, may change perioperative outcomes, reducing the high complication rate and hospital stay in this population.5 These ‘geriatric, peri-interventional pathways’ can include a peri-interventional stay in an intermediate care or high-dependency unit for physiological stabilisation6,7 and/or specialised geriatric consultations during the perioperative period,8 measures which have been identified as effective. Potentially, even long-term survival could be improved, as mortality remains elevated for years in patients who develop early postinterventional complications.9,10

It is ethically inappropriate to manage the elderly with poorer care quality than that provided to younger patients. On the contrary, if we manage the most vulnerable elderly patient with the highest standards and success, we will probably also treat less vulnerable patients more successfully. However, there are limits to perioperative care in elderly patients with advanced disease. To exceed physiological and cognitive limitations is associated with an excessive postinterventional mortality.4,11–13 Therefore, considerations regarding personal perioperative goals, advance directives (including resuscitation status and limitations on invasive and intensive treatment) and potential end-of-life care must be part of the peri-interventional care of the elderly.

Surgical or nonsurgical indications for an intervention in elderly patients should include an estimation of the risk of major complications or death based on the assessment of frailty, and on physical and cognitive capacities. Importantly, care should be taken to avoid over-optimistic prognosis and inappropriate indications for burdensome interventions in the last months of life, which happens too often, as suggested by a recent investigation in which 18% of patients in a cohort of elderly Medicare beneficiaries had surgery in the last month of life.14 High-risk interventions often performed at the end of life are emergency laparotomy, hip fracture repair or minimally invasive valve repair in patients with advanced dementia, and drainages in advanced and metastatic tumours often combined with a history of recent sepsis.15 Similar risks have been described in patients with end-stage liver cirrhosis16,17 or advanced neurological diseases.18 It is not unusual to witness disagreement between interventional physicians estimating the potential benefits of an intervention (e.g. cure of disease or improved mobility) and physicians responsible for preventing and treating major complications, such as anaesthesiologists and intensive care physicians.

Reliable, quantitative risk assessment of comorbidities, cognition and frailty for realistic prognosis could nuance the complex preinterventional decision-making process in these elderly patients with advanced disease, contributing to a broader consensus of all healthcare personnel involved in the perioperative period for the best care of their patients. Realistic estimates of outcomes and postinterventional complications with avoidance of therapeutic illusions could optimise patient selection, personalised diagnostic and therapeutic preparation, and timing of intervention in these high-risk patients. The use of these instruments is likely to facilitate peri-interventional decisions in this group of patients, who often live in nursing homes, and may reduce burdensome postoperative complications such as uncontrolled infection, including pneumonia, decubitus ulcers and delirium with the use of mechanical restraints. At least, such instruments should improve communication between interventional physicians and anaesthesiologists by providing a common ground of solidly documented quantitative evidence.

Individualised quantitative risk assessment in elderly patients with advanced disease is seldom performed, even though it is a legal obligation for doctors to provide accurate risk estimates, and patients need such information to develop realistic expectations and take de facto informed decisions about the interventions proposed to them.19 There are a number of validated risk prediction tools with high accuracy of discrimination for specific outcomes in general surgical populations20–23 or specific interventions,24,25 but very few studies on their actual implementation and use.

There may be many reasons why quantitative risk assessment is not performed routinely in clinical practice. First, validated risk prediction tools may not be available for a specific intervention or a particular peri-interventional complication (e.g. bleeding or postinterventional sepsis). Second, validated risk prediction tools are available but the accuracy of discrimination is only moderate, as in the prediction rule of Marcantonio et al.26 for postoperative delirium. Third, validated prediction tools are available and accurate, but too complex or laborious for routine clinical use.27 Fourth, clinicians in anaesthesiology may have limited training in interpretation of studies testing predictive tools and inadequate understanding of concepts such as derivation and validation cohorts, calibration and external validation,28 which are the basics for high-quality quantitative risk assessment. Fifth, cultural factors and medical paternalism might be a barrier to enhanced patient autonomy and shared decision-making based on objective and accurately predicted complications and outcomes.29 Finally, robust evidence is still lacking on how preinterventional decision-making, perioperative care and outcomes can be influenced by the use of these prediction tools.

The complex peri-interventional decision-making in elderly patients with advanced disease should be an interdisciplinary process, centred on each patient's individual expectations and overall life plan. It should be supported by estimated quantitative benefits of the intervention (e.g. prolongation of life or predicted functional recovery and regained gait) and validated prediction tools for complications (e.g. death, prolonged hospital stay, cognitive loss, loss of independence) delivered by anaesthesiologists. Geriatric physicians should provide objective frailty and life expectancy estimations, such as Global Deterioration Scale and Cognitive Impairment Scale,30 together with a realistic plan for physical, psychological and social re-adaptation – in a similar way to that in which, for many years, multidisciplinary teams have determined the most appropriate treatment for patients suffering from advanced tumours. Importantly, personnel in palliative and comfort care wards should participate in the elaboration of the perioperative care plan.31 Effective communication on preinterventional medical decisions with individualised concepts and goals targeted to each patient's educational, cognitive and cultural contexts is an essential part of successful medical management.32 This individualised plan should be clear and made available to all healthcare personnel directly involved in caring for the patient. Such multidisciplinary decision-making should decrease withholding of postinterventional strategies or withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments, and optimise patient satisfaction and comfort. Potentially, such preinterventional and well balanced planning based on sound scientific evidence of prediction tools toward high-quality care may also be cost-effective.

Acknowledgements relating to this article

Assistance with the editorial: none.

Financial support and sponsorship: none.

Conflicts of interest: none.

Comment from the editor: this editorial was checked and accepted by the editors but was not sent for external peer review. BW is a Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

References

1. World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health. 01 March 2016. http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/world-report-2015.
2. Haas LE, Karakus A, Holman R, et al. Trends in hospital and intensive care admissions in the Netherlands attributable to the very elderly in an ageing population. Crit Care 2015; 19:353.
3. van Diepen S, Bakal JA, McAlister FA, et al. Mortality and readmission of patients with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, or coronary artery disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: an analysis of 38 047 patients. Circulation 2011; 124:289–296.
4. Jawad M, Baigi A, Oldner A, et al. Swedish surgical outcomes study (SweSOS): an observational study on 30-day and 1-year mortality after surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32:1–9.
5. Soreide K, Story DA, Walder B. Perioperative medicine and mortality after elective and emergency surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016; 33:314–316.
6. Eichenberger AS, Haller G, Cheseaux N, et al. A clinical pathway in a postanaesthesia care unit to reduce length of stay, mortality and unplanned intensive care unit admission. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:859–866.
7. Wickboldt N, Haller G, Delhumeau C, et al. A low observed-to-expected postoperative mortality ratio in a Swiss high-standard peri-operative care environment: an observational study. Swiss Med Wkly 2015; 145:14205.
8. Harari D, Hopper A, Dhesi J, et al. Proactive care of older people undergoing surgery (‘POPS’): designing, embedding, evaluating and funding a comprehensive geriatric assessment service for older elective surgical patients. Age Ageing 2007; 36:190–196.
9. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, et al. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg 2005; 242:326–341.
10. Lugg ST, Agostini PJ, Tikka T, et al. Long-term impact of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication after lung surgery. Thorax 2016; 71:171–176.
11. Hamel MB, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, et al. Surgical outcomes for patients aged 80 and older: morbidity and mortality from major noncardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:424–429.
12. Clarke A, Murdoch H, Thomas MJ, et al. Mortality and postoperative care after emergency laparotomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:16–19.
13. Walder B. Improvement of perioperative care for better outcomes after surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:7–9.
14. Kwok AC, Semel ME, Lipsitz SR, et al. The intensity and variation of surgical care at the end of life: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2011; 378:1408–1413.
15. Neuman MD, Silber JH, Magaziner JS, et al. Survival and functional outcomes after hip fracture among nursing home residents. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:1273–1280.
16. Lopez-Delgado JC, Ballus J, Esteve F, et al. Outcomes of abdominal surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:2657–2667.
17. Neeff H, Mariaskin D, Spangenberg HC, et al. Perioperative mortality after nonhepatic general surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis: an analysis of 138 operations in the 2000s using Child and MELD scores. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15:1–11.
18. Cooper Z, Mitchell SL, Gorges RJ, et al. Predictors of mortality up to 1 year after emergency major abdominal surgery in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2015; 63:2572–2579.
19. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175:274–286.
20. Glance LG, Lustik SJ, Hannan EL, et al. The Surgical Mortality Probability Model: derivation and validation of a simple risk prediction rule for noncardiac surgery. Ann Surg 2012; 255:696–702.
21. Gupta PK, Gupta H, Sundaram A, et al. Development and validation of a risk calculator for prediction of cardiac risk after surgery. Circulation 2011; 124:381–387.
22. Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, et al. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:1338–1350.
23. Kheterpal S, Tremper KK, Heung M, et al. Development and validation of an acute kidney injury risk index for patients undergoing general surgery: results from a national data set. Anesthesiology 2009; 110:505–515.
24. Oliver CM, Walker E, Giannaris S, et al. Risk assessment tools validated for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115:849–860.
25. Marufu TC, Mannings A, Moppett IK. Risk scoring models for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality in people with fragility hip fractures: qualitative systematic review. Injury 2015; 46:2325–2334.
26. Marcantonio ER, Goldman L, Mangione CM, et al. A clinical prediction rule for delirium after elective noncardiac surgery. JAMA 1994; 271:134–139.
27. Le Manach Y, Collins G, Rodseth R, et al. Preoperative Score to Predict Postoperative Mortality (POSPOM): derivation and validation. Anesthesiology 2016; 124:570–579.
28. Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med 2014; 11:e1001744.
29. Rodriguez-Osorio CA, Dominguez-Cherit G. Medical decision making: paternalism versus patient-centered (autonomous) care. Curr Opin Crit Care 2008; 14:708–713.
30. Mitchell SL, Teno JM, Kiely DK, et al. The clinical course of advanced dementia. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1529–1538.
31. Blinderman CD, Billings JA. Comfort care for patients dying in the hospital. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2549–2561.
32. Bernacki RE, Block SD. American College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:1994–2003.
© 2016 European Society of Anaesthesiology