A Critical Assessment of Outcomes in Emergency versus Nonemergency General Surgery Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

Abstract

Emergent operations are thought to carry higher morbidity and mortality than nonemergent cases. However, there is a lack of specific outcomes data for emergent general surgery procedures. The objective of our study was to assess and quantify postoperative morbidity and mortality for emergency versus nonemergency general surgery operations. All general surgery inpatients were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2008 database. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical metrics and occurrences were assessed. A total of 25,770 emergent and 98,867 nonemergent cases were identified. Postoperative morbidity was significantly worse in the emergent group, including ventilation more than 48 hours, bleeding requiring transfusion, deep vein thrombosis, renal failure, and need for reoperation. Overall, emergent cases had significantly more postoperative complications (22.8% vs 14.2%) and higher mortality rates (6.5% vs 1.4%). General surgery patients who undergo emergent operations have significantly poorer outcomes when compared with nonemergent patients; our analysis has quantified these differences. Emergent patients seem to manifest unique clinical, pathophysiologic, and inflammatory responses to their surgical disease. This data suggests that there is a need for improvement in both methods and systems of care for the emergent population.

Elective versus emergency abdominal surgery following cardiac transplantation: a Victorian state transplant service experience

“…No previous deaths in 50 prior elective cases reported in the literature compares favourably with a 42% mortality rate (18 deaths from 43) following emergent surgery. This overall incidence is consistent with the outcomes of the emergency group in the current study, and is significantly higher than mortality rates of 5.8–14% for emergency abdominal surgeries in the general population …”

Volume and in-hospital mortality after emergency abdominal surgery: a national population-based study

“…In high-risk elective surgery, identification of an association between hospital and surgeon volume and outcomes has prompted many improvements including the reconfiguration of elective surgical services 4. In contrast, despite greater risks associated with EAS,5 6 relationships between volume and outcomes in emergency surgery are poorly understood. Patients presenting for EAS are a vulnerable group as the acute nature of symptoms requires urgent care, resulting in less choice of hospital and surgeon provider.…”

Pro-con debate on regionalization of emergency general surgery: controversy or common sense?

“…EGS patients are clinically complex compared with elective counterparts. They have more comorbidities (eg, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunosuppression), more acute physiologic derangement (eg, respiratory failure, ascites, sepsis), and worse baseline function and cognition 1 23–25. Of all EGS patients, 13% to 50% require intensive care, and 12% to 14% have septic shock 23 26–31.…”