Discussion
Temporal trends exist throughout surgery and are important for their ability to inform operative decision-making. Understanding the timing of complications is an area that has received little study in the EGS population. This analysis used a large heterogeneous population undergoing EGS operations and identified several important preoperative and postoperative patient variables associated with early death. The novel definition of ‘early death,’ or before postoperative day 5, highlights a population suffering from rapid complications and mortality after surgery. The choice of postoperative day 5 is also thought to be reflective of a lack of operative success intended to be easily understood by both patient and provider alike.
Increased knowledge of preoperative and immediate postoperative variables associated with early death may prompt providers and family members to re-evaluate operative success and expected outcomes. If a patient is found to be at high risk for early death in the immediate postoperative period, this knowledge provides providers and families alike with an opportunity to clarify goals of care for a patient. The difficulty in making decisions for patients who are acutely ill and suffering from sepsis or septic shock in an intensive care setting is often compounded by the situation’s sudden and emotional nature.11 12 A lack of information or previous miscommunication regarding prognosis can further complicate these conversations. The results of this analysis provide an opportunity to fill in gaps or correct missing information to aid in treatment decisions. Conversely, this study may also be used in counseling patients and families who have suffered postoperative complications but do not appear to be at increased risk of early death to continue to pursue therapy rather than transition to more comfort-based care.
Specific preoperative variables associated with early death were identified in this analysis. Perioperative sepsis has long been demonstrated to be a cause of mortality after EGS operations and in this study preoperative septic shock and postoperative septic shock combined to be two of the largest predictors of early death. This is in contrast to the influence of sepsis alone, whose impact on early death was less than half that demonstrated by septic shock. The influence of preoperative sepsis and septic shock on postoperative outcomes is multifactorial and likely represents sequelae of tissue hypoperfusion.13 The results of this analysis suggest the existence of an early time point for some patients after which dysregulation of the inflammatory process is unlikely to be reversed by operative intervention or postoperative critical care. Although sepsis and septic shock were shown to be strongly associated with early death, careful interpretation and caution is warranted in applying these results directly to clinical scenarios. Future studies focused on arresting or mitigating the impact of sepsis and septic shock could use the parameter of early death to further explore the impact of intervention timing on outcomes.
Other drivers of inflammation were also implicated as contributors to early death in this study. Preoperative ventilator dependence has been demonstrated in many models to contribute to overall inflammation, and patients suffering from sepsis or septic shock often require mechanical ventilation due to arterial hypoxemia or inability to protect their airway due to cerebral hypoperfusion.14 15 Thus, ventilator dependence as both a product and cause of inflammation in part explains why requiring ventilator support prior to EGS operations was such a large predictor of early death. Similarly, severe medical comorbidities shown to increase risk for early death in this study, such as liver or renal failure, likely reflect reduced physiologic reserve available to combat the effects of sepsis and septic shock in the immediate postoperative period after EGS operations.
This analysis also isolated specific postoperative variables associated with early death, knowledge of which may aid decision makers in early goals of care discussions. A large proportion of patients in this study who entered the operating room in septic shock continued to suffer from septic shock postoperatively and subsequently suffered high mortality. The influence of septic shock on early death in this study demonstrates the importance of mitigating inflammatory dysregulation to improve patient outcomes and suggests a need to study interventions to achieve source control in this population. One such intervention that may improve outcomes in select populations is a damage control operation, a well-studied surgical technique that uses planned reoperation to arrest the cyclical nature of inflammatory mediated physiologic derangements to decrease mortality.16 17
This study brings to light the stark difference between patients undergoing emergent as opposed to elective colectomies. Operations done emergently are often done in the face of profound physiologic dysregulation due to systemic sepsis or septic shock.18 Patients rarely are able to benefit from preoperative risk stratification or optimization as opposed to their elective counterparts and are more likely to require more morbid operations performed under expedited circumstances. One solution that has arisen in the face of these challenges has been the advent of specialist Acute Care Surgery services that have demonstrated an ability to provide more timely care, improve patient outcomes, and benefit the overall health system from a cost perspective.19–22 This, combined with the known relationship between volume and outcomes in EGS, suggests that patients may benefit from early referral to centers that specialize in caring for these patients who are critically ill.23
This study has important limitations. Its retrospective nature subjects it to all the biases inherent in a study of its type. As it is drawn from a large heterogeneous national sample it is not known how individual hospital and provider practices have biased outcomes. Given the complexity of the clinical question, there is an opportunity to further investigate this question with newer statistical methodologies such as artificial intelligence.24 It is possible that the influence of sepsis and septic shock on mortality is secondary to centers failing to employ source control or damage control strategies. Likewise, we are unable to control for which patients, if any, received damage control operations or achieved adequate source control and how this information may have biased our conclusions. Equally likely to bias outcomes are differences in opinion regarding the appropriateness of operating on patients who suffer severe physiological derangement from preoperative sepsis and might be considered inappropriate surgical candidates at some centers. As this study employs a novel definition of early death that to our knowledge has not been employed elsewhere, we are unable to externally validate the results of our study with other risk calculators. There are many different possible criteria for defining early death and our novel definition, based in part on the timing of complication occurrence, may not represent the most effective definition for other operation types. This study cannot control for differing conceptualizations of surgical futility among providers or patients.25 26 To maintain the generalizability of this study and due to a lack of granularity regarding reasons for surgery, diagnosis codes were not included in this analysis. This is a further limitation of our study.
In conclusion, increased knowledge of contributors to early death in the EGS population potentially empowers patients, families and clinicians to make reasoned choices regarding the potential utility and expected outcome of large EGS operations. Death within 30 days is a standard outcome measure for postoperative mortality (eg, it is used by NSQIP). Based on the present analysis, risk of death within 5 days may also be a useful metric, especially as it relates to multiple perioperative decisions, for surgeons and families alike: offering an operation, establishing goals of care, and setting expectations.