Subjective and objective survival prediction in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: ICU risk assessment tools, routinely used for predicting population outcomes, are not recommended for evaluating individual risk. The state of health of single patients is mostly subjectively assessed to inform relatives and presumably to decide on treatment decisions. However, little is known how subjective and objective survival estimates compare. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients across five European centres, assessed 62 objective markers and asked the clinical staff to subjectively estimate the probability of surviving 28 days. RESULTS: Within the 961 included patients, we identified 27 single objective predictors for 28-day survival (73.8%) and pooled them into predictive groups. While patient characteristics and treatment models performed poorly, the disease and biomarker models had a moderate discriminative performance for predicting 28-day survival, which improved for predicting 1-year survival. Subjective estimates of nurses (c-statistic [95% CI] 0.74 [0.70-0.78]), junior physicians (0.78 [0.74-0.81]) and attending physicians (0.75 [0.72-0.79]) discriminated survivors from non-survivors at least as good as the combination of all objective predictors (c-statistic: 0.67-0.72). Unexpectedly, subjective estimates were insufficiently calibrated, overestimating death in high-risk patients by about 20% in absolute terms. Combining subjective and objective measures refined discrimination and reduced the overestimation of death. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective survival estimates are simple, cheap and similarly discriminative as objective models; however, they overestimate death risking that live-saving therapies are withheld. Therefore, subjective survival estimates of individual patients should be compared with objective tools and interpreted with caution if not agreeing. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN59376582 , retrospectively registered October 31st 2013.

Liver resections can be performed safely without Pringle maneuver: A prospective study.

AIM: To evaluate liver resections without Pringle maneuver, i.e., clamping of the portal triad. METHODS: Between 9/2002 and 7/2013, 175 consecutive liver resections (n = 101 major anatomical and n = 74 large atypical > 5 cm) without Pringle maneuver were performed in 127 patients (143 surgeries). Accompanying, 37 wedge resections (specimens < 5 cm) and 43 radiofrequency ablations were performed. Preoperative volumetric calculation of the liver remnant preceeded all anatomical resections. The liver parenchyma was dissected by water-jet. The median central venous pressure was 4 mmHg (range: 5-14). Data was collected prospectively. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 60 years (range: 16-85). Preoperative chemotherapy was used in 70 cases (49.0%). Liver cirrhosis was present in 6.3%, and liver steatosis of ≥ 10% in 28.0%. Blood loss was median 400 mL (range 50-5000 mL). Perioperative blood transfusions were given in 22/143 procedures (15%). The median weight of anatomically resected liver specimens was 525 g (range: 51-1850 g). One patient died postoperatively. Biliary leakages (n = 5) were treated conservatively. Temporary liver failure occurred in two patients. CONCLUSION: Major liver resections without Pringle maneuver are feasible and safe. The avoidance of liver inflow clamping might reduce liver damage and failure, and shorten the hospital stay.