Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 27;14(11):1297-1309.
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i11.1297.

Development of a warning score for early detection of colorectal anastomotic leakage: Hype or hope?

Affiliations

Development of a warning score for early detection of colorectal anastomotic leakage: Hype or hope?

Nuno J G Rama et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL), a severe postoperative complication, is associated with high morbidity, hospital readmission, and overall healthcare costs. Early detection of CAL remains a challenge in clinical practice. However, some decision models have been developed to increase the diagnostic accuracy of this event.

Aim: To develop a score based on easily accessible variables to detect CAL early.

Methods: Based on the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method, a predictive classification system was developed [Early ColoRectAL Leakage (E-CRALL) score] from a prospective observational, single center cohort, carried out in a colorectal division from a non-academic hospital. The score performance and CAL threshold from postoperative day (POD) 3 to POD5 were estimated. Based on a precise analytical decision model, the standard clinical practice was compared with the E-CRALL adoption on POD3, POD4, or POD5. A cost-minimization analysis was conducted, on the assumption that all alternatives delivered similar health-related effects.

Results: In this study, 396 patients who underwent colorectal resection surgery with anastomosis, and 6.3% (n = 25) developed CAL. Most of the patients who developed CAL (n = 23; 92%) were diagnosed during the first hospital admission, with a median time of diagnosis of 9.0 ± 6.8 d. From POD3 to POD5, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the E-CRALL score was 0.82, 0.84, and 0.95, respectively. On POD5, if a threshold of 8.29 was chosen, 87.4% of anastomotic failures were identified with E-CRALL adoption. Additionally, score usage could anticipate CAL diagnosis in an average of 5.2 d and 4.1 d, if used on POD3 and POD5, respectively. Regardless of score adoption, episode comprehensive costs were markedly greater (up to four times) in patients who developed CAL in comparison with patients who did not develop CAL. Nonetheless, the use of the E-CRALL warning score was associated with cost savings of €421442.20, with most (92.9%) of the savings from patients who did not develop CAL.

Conclusion: The E-CRALL score is an accessible tool to predict CAL at an early timepoint. Additionally, E-CRALL can reduce overall healthcare costs, mainly in the reduction of hospital costs, independent of whether a patient developed CAL.

Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Biomarkers; Colorectal; Costs; Score; Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Early ColoRectAL Leakage score logotype.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The decision tree model scenario with adoption of the Early ColoRectAL Leakage score, considering postoperative days 3, 4, or 5 independently). CAL: Colorectal anastomotic leakage; CT: Computed tomography; Diagn: Diagnosis; E-CRALL: Early ColoRectAL Leakage score; LPS: Laparoscopy; LPT: Laparotomy (open surgery).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of colorectal anastomotic leakage for the Early ColoRectAL Leakage score for postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 5. AUC: Area under the curve; CAL: Colorectal anastomotic leakage; E-CRALL: Early ColoRectAL Leakage score; POD: Postoperative day.

Similar articles

References

    1. Lee SW, Gregory D, Cool CL. Clinical and economic burden of colorectal and bariatric anastomotic leaks. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:4374–4381. - PubMed
    1. La Regina D, Di Giuseppe M, Lucchelli M, Saporito A, Boni L, Efthymiou C, Cafarotti S, Marengo M, Mongelli F. Financial Impact of Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:580–586. - PubMed
    1. Lagoutte N, Facy O, Ravoire A, Chalumeau C, Jonval L, Rat P, Ortega-Deballon P. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin for the early detection of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery: pilot study in 100 patients. J Visc Surg. 2012;149:e345–e349. - PubMed
    1. den Dulk M, Witvliet MJ, Kortram K, Neijenhuis PA, de Hingh IH, Engel AF, van de Velde CJ, de Brauw LM, Putter H, Brouwers MA, Steup WH. The DULK (Dutch leakage) and modified DULK score compared: actively seek the leak. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:e528–e533. - PubMed
    1. Sparreboom CL, Wu ZQ, Ji JF, Lange JF. Integrated approach to colorectal anastomotic leakage: Communication, infection and healing disturbances. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:7226–7235. - PMC - PubMed