Association of preoperative spirometry with cardiopulmonary fitness and postoperative outcomes in surgical patients: A multicentre prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPreoperative spirometry and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) may stratify risk for respiratory complications. This secondary analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study examined whether CPET performance (i.e., cardiopulmonary fitness) confounds associations of spirometry with outcomes.MethodsThe analysis included 1200 participants having major non-cardiac surgery at 25 hospitals in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UK. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured during preoperative spirometry, and peak oxygen consumption and ventilatory efficiency during preoperative CPET. Outcomes were respiratory morbidity (Postoperative Morbidity Survey) and pulmonary complications (pneumonia or respiratory failure). We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate associations of FEV1 with outcomes after adjustment for risk factors and either peak oxygen consumption or ventilatory efficiency.Findings128 participants (11%) developed respiratory morbidity, and 48 (4%) developed pulmonary complications. There was no strong evidence that FEV1 predicted respiratory morbidity after adjustment for peak oxygen consumption (p = 0·80) or ventilatory efficiency (p = 0·76), or FEV1 predicted pulmonary complications after adjustment for ventilatory efficiency (p = 0·37). Peak oxygen consumption (odds ratio 0·66 per 5 mL/kg/min increase; 95% CI, 0·54–0·82) was associated with respiratory morbidity. Ventilatory efficiency was associated with respiratory morbidity (p = 0·04) and pulmonary complications (p = 0·02). Peak oxygen consumption also confounded the association between FEV1 and respiratory morbidity.InterpretationAfter accounting for fitness and clinical factors, FEV1 was not strongly predictive of respiratory complications. Prior associations between FEV1 and respiratory morbidity may be explained by confounding by peak oxygen consumption.FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".