skip to main content
10.1145/3544109.3544184acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesipecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Construction of Perioperative Risk Assessment Model for Elderly Patients based on Machine Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Elderly patients have low surgical tolerance, weak postoperative basic metabolism and recovery ability, often accompanied by chronic diseases, which not only increases the risk of perioperative complications, but also improves the mortality of patients. Clinically, APACHE II, possum, ASA, SRS, TS, MODS, NNIS and other scales are usually used for preoperative risk assessment. The existing quantitative evaluation methods are easily affected by the patients' own diseases, fail to focus to the elderly patients, and cannot consider all the influencing factors before, during and after operation. Machine learning model has the advantages of strong robustness and excellent generalization ability, which has been widely used in medical aided diagnosis. Therefore, based on the literature analysis and combined with the existing quantitative scoring methods and statistical analysis methods, the study extracts and screens out the elements of the clinical evaluation model, then constructs the perioperative risk evaluation model of elderly patients by the machine learning method, which can refer to not only the operation implementation process and recent post-operative factors, but also the basic state of patients, chronic diseases history, operation difficulty, degree of anesthesia, degree of recovery, etc. In test, the ANN model has the highest accuracy and recall in the prediction of perioperative complications in elderly patients, 96.77 percent and 98.33 percent respectively, which is better than 85.48 percent and 68.33 percent of the traditional possum method. The accuracy and recall rate of SVM model in predicting perioperative death of elderly patients are the highest, which can reach 84.56 percent and 90.48 percent respectively, which are better than APACHE II, ASA and P-POSSUM evaluation models. In study, the machine learning model has a good prediction effect in the perioperative risk assessment for elderly patients, and can also be used as an auxiliary decision-making tool for clinical perioperative risk assessment.

References

  1. Sessler DI, Bloomstone JA, Aronson S, Pressure Quality Initiative consensus statement on intraoperative blood pressure, risk and outcomes for elective surgery. Br J Anaesth, 2019, vol. 122, pp. 563-574.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Kaiser HA, Saied NN, Kokoefer AS, Incidence and prediction of intraoperative and postoperative cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 30-day mortality in non-cardiac surgical patients. PLoS One, 2020, vol. 15, pp. 225939.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Kisa NG, Kisa E, Cevik BE. Prediction of Mortality in Patients After Oncologic Gastrointestinal Surgery: Comparison of the ASA, APACHE II, and POSSUM Scoring Systems. Cureus, 2021, vol. 13, pp. e13684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Vyas N L , Chavan S , Gandhi A , Predictability of Morbidity and Mortality using POSSUM Score in post-operative patients. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 2021, vol. 20, pp.12-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Li G, Walco J P, Mueller D A, Reliability of the ASA Physical Status Classification System in Predicting Surgical Morbidity: a Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 2021, vol. 45, pp.1-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Sutiono A B, Arifin M Z, Adhipratama H, The utilization of APACHE II score to predict the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: A single-center study.Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery, 2022, vol. 28, pp.101457.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Toker A K, Kose S, Turken M. Comparison of SOFA Score, SIRS, qSOFA, and qSOFA+L Criteria in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 2021, vol. 53, pp.40-47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Kanake V, Kale K, Mangam S, Thorax trauma severity score in patient with chest trauma: study at tertiary-level hospital. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2022, vol. 38, pp.149-156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sharif A F, Fayed M M. Evaluation of Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score as in-hospital outcome predictors among cases of hydrogen cyanamide exposure: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, pp.1-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujii M, Shirakawa T, Nakamura M, Factors influencing the injury severity score and the probability of survival in patients who fell from height. Scientific Reports, 2021, vol. 11, pp.15561.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Wen X M, Ren N, Hua X X, Distribution and Antibacterial Resistance of Nosocomial Infection Pathogens from National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System. Chinese Journal of Nosoconmiology, 2002, vol. 12, pp.241-244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Wilcox T, Smilowitz NR, Xia Y, Cardiovascular Risk Scores to Predict Perioperative Stroke in Noncardiac Surgery. Stroke, 2019, vol. 50, pp.2002-2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Egbuta C, Mason K P. Recognizing Risks and Optimizing Perioperative Care to Reduce Respiratory Complications in the Pediatric Patient. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020, vol. 9, pp.1942.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jones T J, Bhattacharya B, Davis K A. Optimizing Cardiac Performance During the Perioperative Period. Current Geriatrics Reports, 2022, vol. 10, pp.175-181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Wright DE,Knuesel SJ,Nagarur A,et al. Examining Risk:A Systematic Review of Perioperative Cardiac Risk Prediction Indices. Mayo Clin Proc,2019, vol. 94, pp.2277-2290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bpr A, Jgp A, Pmm B. Mortalidad tras fractura de cadera: modelos predictivos - ScienceDirect. Medicina Clínica, 2020, vol. 154, pp.221-231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jones T J, Bhattacharya B, Davis K A. Optimizing Cardiac Performance During the Perioperative Period. Current Geriatrics Reports, 2022, vol. 10, pp.175-181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Strasberg S M, Linehan D C, Hawkins W G. The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Annals of Surgery, 2009, vol. 250, pp.177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lindroth H, Bratzke Lisa, Twadell S, Predicting postoperative delirium severity in older adults: The role of surgical risk and executive function. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry,2019, vol. 34, pp.1018-1028.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Rozzini R. Patients' preferences and "paternalistic approach" in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. BMJ, 2021, vol. 7246, pp.1380-1384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michel K F, Patel H D, Ziemba J B. Emergency department and hospital revisits after ambulatory surgery for kidney stones: an analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Urolithiasis, 2021, pp.1-9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen L, Wang YB, Zhang YH, Effective prediction of postoperative complications for patients after open hepatectomy: a simplified scoring system based on perioperative parameters. BMC Surg,2019, vol. 19, pp.128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Construction of Perioperative Risk Assessment Model for Elderly Patients based on Machine Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      IPEC '22: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers
      April 2022
      1065 pages
      ISBN:9781450395786
      DOI:10.1145/3544109

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 July 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format