Does preoperative multidisciplinary team assessment of high-risk patients improve the safety and outcomes of patients undergoing surgery?

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment for high-risk surgical patients. Preoperative MDT meetings can help to improve surgical care, but there is little evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes. METHODS: This paper aims to share our experience of MDT meetings for high-risk surgical patients to underline their added value to the current standard of care. An observational study of a retrospective cohort of preoperative high-risk MDT meetings of a tertiary referral hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. For 249 patients the outcomes preoperative data, MDT decisions, and patient outcomes were collected from electronic health records. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were discussed at high-risk MDT meetings. Most of the patients (97%) were assessed as having an American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥ 3, and 219 (88%) had a European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Anaesthesiology risk score of intermediate or high. After MDT assessment, 154 (62%) were directly approved for surgery, and 39 (16%) were considered ineligible for surgery. The remaining 56 (23%) patients underwent additional assessments before reconsideration at a high-risk MDT meeting. The main reason for patients being discussed at the high-risk MDT meeting was to assess the risk-benefit ratio of surgery. Ultimately, 184 (74%) patients underwent surgery. Of the operated patients, 122 (66%) did not have a major complication in the postoperative period, and 149 patients (81%) were alive after one year. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study shows the vulnerability and complexity of high-risk patients but also shows that the use of an MDT assessment contributes too improved peri- and postoperative treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Most patients underwent surgery after careful risk assessment and, if deemed necessary, preoperative and perioperative treatment optimization to reduce their risk.

Lactate clearance metrics are not superior to initial lactate in predicting mortality in trauma.

PURPOSE: Despite the availability of different lactate clearance (LC) metrics for clinical use, it remains unknown which metric is superior as a clinical predictor for outcome, particularly in trauma patients. This retrospective study compared four previously described metrics of LC and examined the association between LC and outcome in trauma patients. METHODS: Lactate values of trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center between 2010 and 2013 were retrieved from patient records. LC was calculated according to Huckabee, Regnier et al., Billeter et al. and Zhang et al. Patients were categorized as isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), trauma with TBI, and trauma without TBI. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 367 trauma patients were eligible for LC calculation. Only LC by Zhang et al. [area under the curve (AUC) > 0.622, p < 0.01], and Billeter et al. (AUC > 0.616, p < 0.05) were predictive for mortality in trauma patients with and without TBI. However, both were equally prognostic as the initial lactate value for in-hospital mortality. The prognostic value of initial lactate and lactate clearance for in-hospital mortality were not found to differ between isolated TBI, polytrauma with TBI, and trauma without TBI. CONCLUSIONS: LC metrics based on the methods of Zhang et al. and Billeter et al. predicted mortality in trauma patients, and their prognostic value did not differ between patients with and without TBI. However, initial lactate value was equally prognostic as these LC metrics. Our findings suggest that a single initial lactate measurement may be a more clinically useful tool to predict mortality than the calculation of lactate clearance.