Predicting Postoperative Cardiac Events and Mortality for People with Kidney Failure Having Noncardiac Surgery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Key Points Three models developed specifically for people with kidney failure were externally evaluated in a distinct Canadian province. All three models performed well, with some improvement with the re-estimation of predictor coefficients. Models have the potential to improve clinical decision making, and future research should evaluate their clinical effect. Background Patients with kidney failure undergoing noncardiac surgery are at high risk of adverse cardiac events and mortality; however, existing perioperative risk prediction tools for these outcomes are not valid in these patients. Recently, three models were developed from a kidney failure cohort in Alberta, Canada. In this study, we evaluated these Alberta models in a kidney failure cohort that had surgery in Manitoba, Canada. Methods The cohort included adults from Manitoba, Canada (18 years or older), with preexisting kidney failure (eGFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 or receiving maintenance dialysis) undergoing noncardiac surgeries between 2007 and 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. The three models included an increasing number of variables: demographics and surgical characteristics (model 1), comorbidities (model 2), and preoperative albumin and hemoglobin (model 3). Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), calibration, and Brier score on Manitoba data. This was evaluated by applying Alberta model coefficients for all three models to predict outcomes on Manitoba data and also by re-estimating the Alberta model predictor coefficients using logistic regression on Manitoba data. Results We identified 12,082 surgeries performed in 4175 participants; 569 outcomes were observed (4.7%). All three models performed well with both approaches, with AUC-ROC ranging from 0.821 (model 1) to 0.874 (model 3) using the models with Alberta coefficients. Calibration slopes were 1.32, 1.40, and 1.24 for models 1, 2, and 3, respectively. On refitting, AUC-ROC ranged from 0.830 (model 1) to 0.861 (model 3). Calibration slopes approximated one across all the re-estimated models. Brier scores remained <0.1 across all original and re-estimated models. Conclusions Our external validation study confirmed that the kidney failure specific postoperative outcome models developed in Alberta, Canada, performed well in a geographically distinct Canadian population. Future research should explore the performance of these models in different settings and evaluate their clinical effect with prospective implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».