Utility of the surgical apgar score: Validation in 4119 patients

Archives of Surgery

Volumn 144, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 30-36

  Regenbogen, Scott E ^a,b   Ehrenfeld, Jesse M ^b   Lipsitz, Stuart R ^c   Greenberg, Caprice C ^a,c   Hutter, Matthew M ^b   Gawande, Atul A ^a,c  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APGAR SCORE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBIDITY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RISK FACTOR; SURGICAL MORTALITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR SURGERY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 58749097614     PISSN: 00040010     EISSN: 15383644     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.504     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg. 2004;239(4):475-482.
2. Hartley MN, Sagar PM. The surgeon's "gut feeling" as a predictor of post-operative outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994;76(6)(suppl):277-278.
3. Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE - acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med. 1981;9(8):591-597.
4. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78(3):355-360.
5. Whiteley MS, Prytherch DR, Higgins B, Weaver PC, Prout WG. An evaluation of the POSSUM surgical scoring system. Br J Surg. 1996;83(6):812-815.
6. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126(1):66-75.
7. Fink AS, Campbell DA Jr, Mentzer RM Jr, et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):344-354.
8. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The National Veterans Administration Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180(5):519-531.
9. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32(4):260-267.
10. Apgar V, Holaday DA, James LS, Weisbrot IM, Berrien C. Evaluation of the newborn infant; second report. J Am Med Assoc. 1958;168(15):1985-1988.
11. Casey BM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The continuing value of the Apgar score for the assessment of newborn infants. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(7):467-471.
12. Finster M, Wood M. The Apgar score has survived the test of time. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(4):855-857.
13. Apgar V, James LS. Further observations on the newborn scoring system. Am J Dis Child. 1962;104:419-428.
14. Feinstein AR. Multi-item "instruments" vs Virginia Apgar's principles of clinimetrics. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(2):125-128.
15. Gawande AA, Kwaan MR, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SA, Zinner MJ. An Apgar score for surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(2):201-208.
16. Reich DL, Wood RK Jr, Mattar R, et al. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate discrepancies between handwritten and computerized anesthesia records. Anesth Analg. 2000;91(3):612-616.
17. Cook RI, McDonald JS, Nunziata E. Differences between handwritten and automatic blood pressure records. Anesthesiology. 1989;71(3):385-390.
18. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33(3):613-619.
19. Pasternak LR. Risk assessment in ambulatory surgery: challenges and new trends. Can J Anesthesiol. 2004;51(6):R1-R5.
20. American College of Surgeons' NSQIP Advisory Committee. Semi-annual Report. Chicago, IL: ACS NSQIP Advisory Committee; 2006.
21. Arvidsson S, Ouchterlony J, Nilsson S, Sjostedt L, Svardsudd K. The Gothenburg study of perioperative risk, I: preoperative findings, postoperative complications. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1994;38(7):679-690.
22. Arvidsson S, Ouchterlony J, Sjostedt L, Svardsudd K. Predicting postoperative adverse events: clinical efficiency of four general classification systems: the project perioperative risk. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996;40(7):783-791.
23. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-213.
24. Armitage P. Test for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics. 1955;11(3):375-386.
25. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29-36.
26. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148(3):839-843.
27. Markus PM, Martell J, Leister I, Horstmann O, Brinker J, Becker H. Predicting postoperative morbidity by clinical assessment. Br J Surg. 2005;92(1):101-106.
28. Jones HJ, de Cossart L. Risk scoring in surgical patients. Br J Surg. 1999;86(2):149-157.
29. Sutton R, Bann S, Brooks M, Sarin S. The Surgical Risk Scale as an improved tool for risk-adjusted analysis in comparative surgical audit. Br J Surg. 2002;89(6):763-768.
30. Delilkan AE. Comparison of subjective estimates by surgeons and anaesthetists of operative blood loss. Br Med J. 1972;2(5814):619-621.
31. Gardiner AJ, Dudley HA. The measurement of blood loss at operation. Br J Anaesth. 1962;34:653-656.