"Timed Up & Go": a screening tool for predicting 30-day morbidity in onco-geriatric surgical patients? A multicenter cohort study
- PMID: 24475186
- PMCID: PMC3901725
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086863
"Timed Up & Go": a screening tool for predicting 30-day morbidity in onco-geriatric surgical patients? A multicenter cohort study
Erratum in
- PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103907. de'Liguori Carino, Nicola [corrected to Carino, Nicola de’Liguori]
-
Correction: "Timed Up & Go": A Screening Tool for Predicting 30-Day Morbidity in Onco-Geriatric Surgical Patients? A Multicenter Cohort Study.PLoS One. 2016 Jan 26;11(1):e0147993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147993. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 26812156 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the predictive value of the "Timed Up & Go" (TUG), a validated assessment tool, on a prospective cohort study and to compare these findings to the ASA classification, an instrument commonly used for quantifying patients' physical status and anesthetic risk.
Background: In the onco-geriatric surgical population it is important to identify patients at increased risk of adverse post-operative outcome to minimize the risk of over- and under-treatment and improve outcome in this population.
Methods: 280 patients ≥70 years undergoing elective surgery for solid tumors were prospectively recruited. Primary endpoint was 30-day morbidity. Pre-operatively TUG was administered and ASA-classification was registered. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%-CI). Absolute risks and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC's) were calculated.
Results: 180 (64.3%) patients (median age: 76) underwent major surgery. 55 (20.1%) patients experienced major complications. 50.0% of patients with high TUG and 25.6% of patients with ASA≥3 experienced major complications (absolute risks). TUG and ASA were independent predictors of the occurrence of major complications (TUG:OR 3.43; 95%-CI = 1.14-10.35. ASA1 vs. 2:OR 5.91; 95%-CI = 0.93-37.77. ASA1 vs. 3&4:OR 12.77; 95%-CI = 1.84-88.74). AUCTUG was 0.64 (95%-CI = 0.55-0.73, p = 0.001) and AUCASA was 0.59 (95%-CI = 0.51-0.67, p = 0.04).
Conclusions: Twice as many onco-geriatric patients at risk of post-operative complications, who might benefit from pre-operative interventions, are identified using TUG than when using ASA.
Conflict of interest statement
References
-
- Balducci L, Extermann M. Management of cancer in the older person: a practical approach. Oncologist 2000;5(3):224–237. - PubMed
-
- De werkgroep ‘Prevalentie van Kanker’ van de Signaleringscommissie Kanker van KWF Kankerbestrijding. Signaleringscommissie Kanker van KWF Kankerbestrijding. Kanker in Nederland: Trends, prognoses en implicaties voor zorgvraag. 2004.
-
- Yancik R, Ries LA. Cancer in older persons. Magnitude of the problem—how do we apply what we know? Cancer 1994. October 1;74(7 Suppl):1995–2003. - PubMed
-
- Kristjansson SR, Nesbakken A, Jordhoy MS, Skovlund E, Audisio RA, Johannessen HO, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment can predict complications in elderly patients after elective surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective observational cohort study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010. December;76(3):208–217. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.11.002 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical