• S Parry, L Denehy, S Berney, L Browning, and Austin Health Post-Operative Surveillance Team (POST) Investigators.
• Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Alan Gilbert Building, Level 7, 161 Barry Street, Carlton 3053, VIC, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg 3084, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: selina.parry@austin.org.au.
• Physiotherapy. 2014 Mar 1; 100 (1): 47-53.

Objectives(1) To determine the ability of the Melbourne risk prediction tool to predict a pulmonary complication as defined by the Melbourne Group Scale in a medically defined high-risk upper abdominal surgery population during the postoperative period; (2) to identify the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications; and (3) to examine the risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications in this high-risk population.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingTertiary Australian referral centre.Participants And Methods50 individuals who underwent medically defined high-risk upper abdominal surgery. Presence of postoperative pulmonary complications was screened daily for seven days using the Melbourne Group Scale (Version 2). Postoperative pulmonary risk prediction was calculated according to the Melbourne risk prediction tool.Outcome Measures(1) Melbourne risk prediction tool; and (2) the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications.ResultsSixty-six percent (33/50) underwent hepatobiliary or upper gastrointestinal surgery. Mean (SD) anaesthetic duration was 377.8 (165.5) minutes. The risk prediction tool classified 84% (42/50) as high risk. Overall postoperative pulmonary complication incidence was 42% (21/50). The tool was 91% sensitive and 21% specific with a 50% chance of correct classification.ConclusionThis is the first study to externally validate the Melbourne risk prediction tool in an independent medically defined high-risk population. There was a higher incidence of pulmonary complications postoperatively observed compared to that previously reported. Results demonstrated poor validity of the tool in a population already defined medically as high risk and when applied postoperatively. This observational study has identified several important points to consider in future trials.Copyright © 2013 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…