Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.
Six years ago, a study performed in our department reported that the incidence of postoperative residual curarisation (PORC) was 39%. The reassessment of neuromuscular monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular block in routine anaesthetic practice is relevant now that sugammadex has become available. The incidence of PORC, defined by a train-of-four (TOF) <90%, was evaluated at post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival in patients whose neuromuscular block had been reversed with neostigmine or sugammadex and those in whom reversal was felt unnecessary (adequate spontaneous recovery). During the PACU stay we recorded the oxygen saturation (SpO 2) at arrival, episodes of SpO 2 <90%, airway manoeuvres and/or stimulation required to maintain SpO 2 >90%, and the need for re-intubation. In total, 624 patients were studied. Fifteen percent (66/441) of the patients who were not reversed, 15% (21/139) of those who were reversed with neostigmine and 2% (1/44) of those who received sugammadex exhibited PORC (P=0.06). No patient required reintubation in the PACU. The absence of neuromuscular monitoring and pharmacological reversal before extubation were not associated with PORC. A TOF <90% at PACU arrival was not associated with SpO 2 <90% during the PACU stay. Body mass index was the only independent predictor of SpO 2 <90% during the stay in the PACU. These findings indicate that in recent years, the incidence of PORC, defined by a TOF <90%, has dramatically decreased in our institution. The differences in PORC were not statistically significant between patients who received sugammadex for reversal and patients with spontaneous recovery or neostigmine reversal.
Background
The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs).
Methods
This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs.
Results
A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59).
Conclusion
Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.