Summary: Estimating pre‐operative mortality risk may inform clinical decision‐making for peri‐operative care. However, pre‐operative mortality risk prediction models are rarely implemented in routine clinical practice. High predictive accuracy and clinical usability are essential for acceptance and clinical implementation. In this systematic review, we identified and appraised prediction models for 30‐day postoperative mortality in non‐cardiac surgical cohorts. PubMed and Embase were searched up to December 2022 for studies investigating pre‐operative prediction models for 30‐day mortality. We assessed predictive performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. Risk of bias was evaluated using a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. To further inform potential adoption, we also assessed clinical usability for selected models. In all, 15 studies evaluating 10 prediction models were included. Discrimination ranged from a c‐statistic of 0.82 (MySurgeryRisk) to 0.96 (extreme gradient boosting machine learning model). Calibration was reported in only six studies. Model performance was highest for the surgical outcome risk tool (SORT) and its external validations. Clinical usability was highest for the surgical risk pre‐operative assessment system. The SORT and risk quantification index also scored high on clinical usability. We found unclear or high risk of bias in the development of all models. The SORT showed the best combination of predictive performance and clinical usability and has been externally validated in several heterogeneous cohorts. To improve clinical uptake, full integration of reliable models with sufficient face validity within the electronic health record is imperative.

Background: As a result of increased life expectancy and improved care for patients suffering from chronic disease, the number of patients with multimorbidity requiring surgical intervention is increasing. For complex surgical patients, it is essential to balance the potential benefits of surgical treatment against the risk of permanent loss of functional capacity and quality of life due to complications. European and US guidelines on perioperative care recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients. However, the evidence underlying benefits from preoperative MDT meetings with all relevant perioperative specialties present is limited. The current study aims to investigate the effect of implementation of preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery on serious adverse events. Methods/design: PREPARATION is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 14 Dutch hospitals without currently established preoperative MDT meeting. The intervention, preoperative MDT meetings, will be implemented sequentially with seven blocks of 2 hospitals switching from control (preoperative screening as usual) to the intervention every 3 months. Each hospital will be randomized to one of seven blocks. We aim to include 1200 patients. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include (cost)effectiveness, functional outcome, and quality of life for up to 12 months. Discussion: PREPARATION is the first study to assess the effectiveness of a preoperative MDT meeting for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients in the presence of an anesthesiologist. If the results suggest that preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients are (cost)-effective, the current study facilitates implementation of preoperative MDT meetings in clinical practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05703230. Registered on 11/09/2022.

Background: Multiple preoperative calculators are available online to predict preoperative mortality risk for noncardiac surgical patients. However, it is currently unknown how these risk calculators perform across different raters. The current study investigated the interrater reliability of three preoperative mortality risk calculators in an elective high-risk noncardiac surgical patient population to evaluate if these calculators can be safely used for identification of high-risk noncardiac surgical patients for a preoperative multidisciplinary team discussion. Methods: Five anesthesiologists assessed the preoperative mortality risk of 34 high-risk patients using the preoperative score to calculate postoperative mortality risks (POSPOM), the American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator (SRC), and the surgical outcome risk tool (SORT). In total, 170 calculations per calculator were gathered. Results: Interrater reliability was poor for SORT (ICC (C.I. 95%) = 0.46 (0.30–0.63)) and moderate for SRC (ICC = 0.65 (0.51–0.78)) and POSPOM (ICC = 0.63 (0.49–0.77). The absolute range of calculated mortality risk was 0.2–72% for POSPOM, 0–36% for SRC, and 0.4–17% for SORT. The coefficient of variation increased in higher risk classes for POSPOM and SORT. The extended Bland–Altman limits of agreement suggested that all raters contributed to the variation in calculated risks. Conclusion: The current results indicate that the preoperative risk calculators POSPOM, SRC, and SORT exhibit poor to moderate interrater reliability. These calculators are not sufficiently accurate for clinical identification and preoperative counseling of high-risk surgical patients. Clinicians should be trained in using mortality risk calculators. Also, clinicians should be cautious when using predicted mortality estimates from these calculators to identify high-risk noncardiac surgical patients for elective surgery.

Summary: Introduction: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is recommended by peri‐operative core outcome sets as a measure of disability. Despite its growing use, the effect of different surgical procedures on disability measured by WHODAS 2.0 remains poorly understood and heterogeneous reporting across studies limits direct comparison. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of different surgical procedures on disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, and the reporting of disability endpoints in peri‐operative medicine. The primary outcome was the difference in WHODAS 2.0 summary score before and after surgery. Disability scores were calculated as a metric between 0% (no disability) and 100% (complete disability). Results: Thirty‐nine studies were included. Pre‐operative disability ranged from 2% to 61%. In 21 studies, disability increased by 1% to 17% within 3 months of surgery, with little change between 6 and 12 months (0% to ‐2%). Studies of orthopaedic surgery generally reported high pre‐operative disability (> 35%) but also reductions in disability (10–37% reduction) within 3 months of surgery. In contrast, studies evaluating cancer surgery (n = 12) generally reported lower pre‐operative disability (< 20%) but small increases (1–8%) within 3 months of surgery. Cardiovascular surgical studies displayed pre‐operative disability between 4% and 17% with a difference in disability of ‐8% to +3% 3 months after surgery. Three different thresholds to define disability and 13 different WHODAS 2.0 endpoints were used, measured at eight different time‐points after surgery. Discussion: The effect of surgical procedures on postoperative disability as measured by WHODAS 2.0 is influenced by the type of surgery. Orthopaedic surgery may decrease disability, whereas cancer surgery may be associated with persistent increases. Standardised reporting of disability endpoints is needed to enhance the quality and comparability of future studies using WHODAS 2.0.