Machine Learning Platforms to Predict 30-day Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy

NCT ID: NCT05828914

Last Updated: 2023-04-25

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Total Enrollment

5000 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-04-28

Study Completion Date

2025-07-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study seeks to utilise retrospective patient data to train machine learning algorithms to predict the short term mortality and morbidity after an emergency laparotomy.

Data will be collected via the Electronic Health records system at the Queen Mary Hospital Hong Kong. Machine learning models will be compared and the best-performing one will be explored for further optimization and deployment. Upon completion, we hope that this platform will aid clinicians to identify high risk patients and aid clinical decisions and peri-operative planning, with the aim to reduce mortality and morbidity in this high risk procedure.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a commonly performed procedure and high risk surgery that is known to have a high mortality and morbidity rate. Despite various audits and studies to identify the risk factors and introduce protocols aimed at improving surgical outcomes, the short term mortality after EL remains high. Worldwide data demonstrates that short term (30-day) mortality ranges between 5.3-21.8%, and long term (1-year) mortality rates ranges between 15-47% (Ref 1). Older patients have been identified as the subgroup suffering from highest mortality rates, and efforts implemented in older patients undergoing EL including: the use of risk calculators for mortality prediction, increased peri-operative input from geriatrician and critical care, higher consultant surgeon and anesthetist presence in the operating theatre, and introduction of enhanced care pathways. Apart from age and specialist input, other risk factors for mortality after EL include: frailty, surgical duration, cancer-related surgery, stoma care, patient selection, pre-operative sepsis and physiological parameters, pre-existing comorbidities, ASA status (Ref 2).

Mortality prediction models currently in clinical use for EL include the Portsmouth-Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (ACS-NSQIP), and the most recent addition of the (NELA) risk calculator. The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) performed in the UK since 2012 has been a paradigm shift in evidence-based improvement for patients undergoing EL, demonstrating a reduction in national 30-day mortality rate (11.8% vs.8.7% in 2012 vs. 2012) after identification and implementation of specific recommendations (Ref 3).

Using the data from the large NELA UK cohort between 2014-2016, the NELA risk calculation tool was developed to estimate 30-day mortality, and takes into account patient demographics, ASA status, physiological parameters, vital signs, and details regarding severity and nature of surgical intervention. Multiple studies in the UK, Australia, Singapore have shown the NELA risk calculator is comparable, if not superior, to P-POSSUM for mortality prediction and risk stratification to differentiate between lowand high-risk patients undergoing EL (Ref 5, 6, 7). However, no risk scoring is perfect. The NELA risk model was shown to underpredict, and P-POSSUM to over-predict observed mortality (Ref 8). Since its introduction, NELA has been a pioneer in developing evidence-based interventions and guiding directions for future research in patients undergoing EL, but its implementation in Hong Kong has been limited by lack of validation of accuracy in our patient population.

Frailty is defined as: an objective measure of increased vulnerability and decreased physiological reserve, resulting in accumulation of physiological deficits in multiple systems, and can occur in patients of all ages, but occurs most commonly in older patients. Frailty is a well known risk factor for poor surgical outcomes in EL (Ref 9, 10), but has yet to be incorporated into commonly used risk calculators. There are many risk scoring and surrogate indices for frailty, sarcopenia and osteopenia. Clinical frailty score (CFS) is the most commonly used index for frailty, and CFS alone has been shown to provide prognostic information for patients undergoing EL, but still underperforming compared to NELA. Interestingly, addition of CFS to NELA did not increase the accuracy of the risk model prediction (Ref 11).

The application of deep learning and machine learning is gaining traction, and has been used to develop various risk prediction models and future event prediction (Ref 4). Accumulation of vast datasets from anesthetic records can prove to be a treasure trove for data scientists to uncover new trends and predictions which would previously be overlooked. Risk calculators are helpful tools for clinicians to aid in clinical decision making, but the accuracy and validation of these risk calculators have not been done in this vicinity. Using machine learning algorithms and incorporation of frailty into risk calculators, we hope to develop a novel algorithm with high accuracy and generalizability, to be introduced into clinical use.

References:

1. (Ref 1: Ng et. al, One year outcomes following emergency laparotomy: A systematic review, World J surg, 2022, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34837122/)
2. (Ref 2: (Ref: Boyd-Carson et al, A review of surgical and perii-operative factors to consider in emergency laparotomy care, 2020, Anesthesia, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31903572/)
3. (Ref 3: NELA Project Team. Seventh Patient Report of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit RCoA London 2021)
4. (Ref 4: Kwon et al, Machine learning: a new opportunity for risk prediction, Korean Circ J. 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923232/)
5. (Ref 5: Lai et al, A comparison of the P-POSUSM and NELA risk score for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in Singapore, World J Surg, 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33903953/)
6. (Ref 6: Eliezer et al, High risk emergency laparotomy in Australia: comparing NELA, P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP calculators, J of surg research, 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022480419306584 )
7. (Ref 7: Eugene et al, Development and internal validation of a novel risk adjustment model for adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy surgery: the national emergency laparotomy audit risk model, BJA, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091218305786 )
8. (Ref 8: Thahir A, Pinto-Lopes R, Madenlidou S, Daby L, Halahakoon C. Mortality risk scoring in emergency general surgery: Are we using the best tool? Journal of Perioperative Practice. 2021;31(4):153-158. doi:10.1177/1750458920920133, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750458920920133)
9. (Ref 9: Fehlmann et al, Association between mortality and frailty in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Euro J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2022, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00068-020-01578-9)
10. (Ref 10: Lee et.al, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16334 (https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.16334))
11. (Ref 11: Palaniappan - Comparison of the clinical frailty score CFS to the National Emergency.Palaniappan et al, Comparison of CFS to the NELA risk calculator in all patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, Colorectal disease, 2022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/codi.16089 )

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Mortality Rate

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Adult patients (\> 18 years old) undergoing EL in Queen Mary Hospital between January 2017 and April 2021 will be included in this study

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients undergoing other emergency general surgical procedures (eg. laparoscopies, cholecystectomy, appendicectomy) will be excluded from this study.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

The University of Hong Kong

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Michael G. Irwin

Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Michael Garnet Irwin, M.B. Ch.B

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

The University of Hong Kong

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

HKU Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine

Hong Kong, Guangdong, China

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Michael Garnet Irwin, M.B. Ch.B

Role: CONTACT

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Chong

Role: primary

(852)22553749

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

UW 22-334

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.