• J. Am. Coll. Surg. · Aug 2016

    Clinical Trial

    A Prognostic Model of Surgical Site Infection Using Daily Clinical Wound Assessment.

    • Patrick C Sanger, Gabrielle H van Ramshorst, Ezgi Mercan, Shuai Huang, Andrea L Hartzler, Cheryl A L Armstrong, Ross J Lordon, William B Lober, and Heather L Evans.
    • Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: psanger@uw.edu.
    • J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2016 Aug 1; 223 (2): 259-270.e2.

    BackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) remains a common, costly, and morbid health care-associated infection. Early detection can improve outcomes, yet previous risk models consider only baseline risk factors (BF) not incorporating a proximate and timely data source-the wound itself. We hypothesize that incorporation of daily wound assessment improves the accuracy of SSI identification compared with traditional BF alone.Study DesignA prospective cohort of 1,000 post open abdominal surgery patients at an academic teaching hospital were examined daily for serial features (SF), for example, wound characteristics and vital signs, in addition to standard BF, for example, wound class. Using supervised machine learning, we trained 3 Naïve Bayes classifiers (BF, SF, and BF+SF) using patient data from 1 to 5 days before diagnosis to classify SSI on the following day. For comparison, we also created a simplified SF model that used logistic regression. Control patients without SSI were matched on 5 similar consecutive postoperative days to avoid confounding by length of stay. Accuracy, sensitivity/specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated on a training and hold-out testing set.ResultsOf 851 patients, 19.4% had inpatient SSIs. Univariate analysis showed differences in C-reactive protein, surgery duration, and contamination, but no differences in American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, diabetes, or emergency surgery. The BF, SF, and BF+SF classifiers had area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.67, 0.76, and 0.76, respectively. The best-performing classifier (SF) had optimal sensitivity of 0.80, specificity of 0.64, positive predictive value of 0.35, and negative predictive value of 0.93. Features most associated with subsequent SSI diagnosis were granulation degree, exudate amount, nasogastric tube presence, and heart rate.ConclusionsSerial features provided moderate positive predictive value and high negative predictive value for early identification of SSI. Addition of baseline risk factors did not improve identification. Features of evolving wound infection are discernable before the day of diagnosis, based primarily on visual inspection.Copyright © 2016 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.