Use of Machine Learning to Develop and Evaluate Models Using Preoperative and Intraoperative Data to Identify Risks of Postoperative Complications

Bing Xue, Dingwen Li, Chenyang Lu, Christopher R King, Troy Wildes, Michael S Avidan, Thomas Kannampallil, Joanna Abraham, Bing Xue, Dingwen Li, Chenyang Lu, Christopher R King, Troy Wildes, Michael S Avidan, Thomas Kannampallil, Joanna Abraham

Abstract

Importance: Postoperative complications can significantly impact perioperative care management and planning.

Objectives: To assess machine learning (ML) models for predicting postoperative complications using independent and combined preoperative and intraoperative data and their clinically meaningful model-agnostic interpretations.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed 111 888 operations performed on adults at a single academic medical center from June 1, 2012, to August 31, 2016, with a mean duration of follow-up based on the length of postoperative hospital stay less than 7 days. Data analysis was performed from February 1 to September 31, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes included 5 postoperative complications: acute kidney injury (AKI), delirium, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and pneumonia. Patient and clinical characteristics available preoperatively, intraoperatively, and a combination of both were used as inputs for 5 candidate ML models: logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, gradient boosting tree (GBT), and deep neural network (DNN). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Model interpretations were generated using Shapley Additive Explanations by transforming model features into clinical variables and representing them as patient-specific visualizations.

Results: A total of 111 888 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.4 [16.8] years; 56 915 [50.9%] female; 82 533 [73.8%] White) were included in this study. The best-performing model for each complication combined the preoperative and intraoperative data with the following AUROCs: pneumonia (GBT), 0.905 (95% CI, 0.903-0.907); AKI (GBT), 0.848 (95% CI, 0.846-0.851); DVT (GBT), 0.881 (95% CI, 0.878-0.884); PE (DNN), 0.831 (95% CI, 0.824-0.839); and delirium (GBT), 0.762 (95% CI, 0.759-0.765). Performance of models that used only preoperative data or only intraoperative data was marginally lower than that of models that used combined data. When adding variables with missing data as input, AUROCs increased from 0.588 to 0.905 for pneumonia, 0.579 to 0.848 for AKI, 0.574 to 0.881 for DVT, 0.5 to 0.831 for PE, and 0.6 to 0.762 for delirium. The Shapley Additive Explanations analysis generated model-agnostic interpretation that illustrated significant clinical contributors associated with risks of postoperative complications.

Conclusions and relevance: The ML models for predicting postoperative complications with model-agnostic interpretation offer opportunities for integrating risk predictions for clinical decision support. Such real-time clinical decision support can mitigate patient risks and help in anticipatory management for perioperative contingency planning.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr King reported receiving grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences during the conduct of the study. Dr Wildes reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research during the conduct of the study. Dr Kannampallil reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer Inc outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Flowchart of Complication Analysis and…
Figure 1.. Flowchart of Complication Analysis and Cohort Split
AKI indicates acute kidney injury, DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism.
Figure 2.. Results of Machine Learning Models
Figure 2.. Results of Machine Learning Models
A, Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) of best-performing learning models. B, AUROCs when using only preoperative data, intraoperative data, and combined data. C, AUROCs with added features in ascending order of missing rate. D, AUROCs with varied number of features. AKI indicates acute kidney injury; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism. The error bars indicate 95% CIs.
Figure 3.. Complication-Specific Model Interpretation
Figure 3.. Complication-Specific Model Interpretation
A, Evolvement of risks (from top to bottom) contributed by each variable (magnitude of contribution decreasing from left to right) compared with a group of patients who did not have pneumonia. B, Characterization of significant intraoperative time series (in this case, it is the noninvasive mean blood pressure [MBP]) by its statistical features. Each statistical feature is normalized to zero mean and unit variance; therefore, the magnitude reflects its deviation from the historical mean of patients. BMI indicates body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); ETCO2, end-tidal carbon dioxide; SHAP, Shapley Additive Explanations.

References

    1. Hamel MB, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Daley J. Surgical outcomes for patients aged 80 and older: morbidity and mortality from major noncardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(3):424-429. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53159.x
    1. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB, Jones RS. Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(6):865-877. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.026
    1. Healey MA, Shackford SR, Osler TM, Rogers FB, Burns E. Complications in surgical patients. Arch Surg. 2002;137(5):611-617. doi:10.1001/archsurg.137.5.611
    1. Tevis SE, Kennedy GD. Postoperative complications and implications on patient-centered outcomes. J Surg Res. 2013;181(1):106-113. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.032
    1. Hollinger A, Siegemund M, Goettel N, Steiner LA. Postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery: an unavoidable menace? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(6):1677-1687. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2014.08.021
    1. Young PY, Khadaroo RG. Surgical site infections. Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(6):1245-1264. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2014.08.008
    1. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup . Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.01.015
    1. Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD. Adverse events in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(4):269-276. doi:10.1093/intqhc/14.4.269
    1. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126(1):66-75. doi:10.1067/msy.1999.98664
    1. FitzHenry F, Murff HJ, Matheny ME, et al. . Exploring the frontier of electronic health record surveillance: the case of postoperative complications. Med Care. 2013;51(6):509-516. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828d1210
    1. Hofer IS, Lee C, Gabel E, Baldi P, Cannesson M. Development and validation of a deep neural network model to predict postoperative mortality, acute kidney injury, and reintubation using a single feature set. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):58. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0248-0
    1. Weller GB, Lovely J, Larson DW, Earnshaw BA, Huebner M. Leveraging electronic health records for predictive modeling of post-surgical complications. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(11):3271-3285. doi:10.1177/0962280217696115
    1. Fritz BA, Cui Z, Zhang M, et al. . Deep-learning model for predicting 30-day postoperative mortality. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(5):688-695. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.07.025
    1. Warner JL, Zhang P, Liu J, Alterovitz G. Classification of hospital acquired complications using temporal clinical information from a large electronic health record. J Biomed Inform. 2016;59:209-217. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2015.12.008
    1. Wang LE, Shaw PA, Mathelier HM, Kimmel SE, French B. Evaluating risk-prediction models using data from electronic health records. Ann Appl Stat. 2016;10(1):286-304. doi:10.1214/15-AOAS891
    1. Lundberg SM, Nair B, Vavilala MS, et al. . Explainable machine-learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018;2(10):749-760. doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0304-0
    1. Meersch M, Schmidt C, Hoffmeier A, et al. . Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated AKI by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high risk patients identified by biomarkers: the PrevAKI randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(11):1551-1561. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4670-3
    1. Cavallazzi R, Saad M, Marik PE. Delirium in the ICU: an overview. Ann Intensive Care. 2012;2(1):49. doi:10.1186/2110-5820-2-49
    1. Janssen TL, Alberts AR, Hooft L, Mattace-Raso F, Mosk CA, van der Laan L. Prevention of postoperative delirium in elderly patients planned for elective surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:1095-1117. doi:10.2147/CIA.S201323
    1. Vlisides P, Avidan M. Recent advances in preventing and managing postoperative delirium. F1000Res. 2019;8. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16780.1
    1. Caparelli ML, Shikhman A, Jalal A, Oppelt S, Ogg C, Allamaneni S. prevention of postoperative pneumonia in noncardiac surgical patients: a prospective study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Am Surg. 2019;85(1):8-14. doi:10.1177/000313481908500104
    1. Miskovic A, Lumb AB. Postoperative pulmonary complications. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(3):317-334. doi:10.1093/bja/aex002
    1. Cayley WE Jr. Preventing deep vein thrombosis in hospital inpatients. BMJ. 2007;335(7611):147-151. doi:10.1136/
    1. Abraham J, King CR, Meng A. Ascertaining design requirements for postoperative care transition interventions. Appl Clin Inform. 2021;12(1):107-115. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1721780
    1. Fritz BA, Chen Y, Murray-Torres TM, et al. . Using machine learning techniques to develop forecasting algorithms for postoperative complications: protocol for a retrospective study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020124. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020124
    1. Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112-118. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597
    1. Azur MJ, Stuart EA, Frangakis C, Leaf PJ. Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2011;20(1):40-49. doi:10.1002/mpr.329
    1. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al. . Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Machine Learn Res. 2011;12(85):2825-2830.
    1. Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ‘16). Association for Computing Machinery; 2016:785-794. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785
    1. Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, et al. . TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems. arXiv. Preprint posted online March 14, 2016.
    1. Lemaître G, Nogueira F, Aridas CK. Imbalanced-learn: A Python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning. J Machine Learn Res. 2017;18(17):1-5.
    1. Lundberg S, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. arXiv. Preprint posted online May 22, 2017.
    1. Liu G-W, Sui X-Z, Wang S-D, Zhao H, Wang J. Identifying patients at higher risk of pneumonia after lung resection. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(5):1289-1294. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.04.42
    1. Meyer A, Zverinski D, Pfahringer B, et al. . Machine learning for real-time prediction of complications in critical care: a retrospective study. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(12):905-914. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30300-X
    1. Brajer N, Cozzi B, Gao M, et al. . Prospective and external evaluation of a machine learning model to predict in-hospital mortality of adults at time of admission. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920733-e1920733. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20733
    1. Fritz BA, Escallier KE, Ben Abdallah A, et al. . Convergent validity of three methods for measuring postoperative complications. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(6):1265-1276. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001108
    1. Kaafarani HMA, Rosen AK. Using administrative data to identify surgical adverse events: an introduction to the Patient Safety Indicators. Am J Surg. 2009;198(5)(suppl):S63-S68. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.008
    1. Henry LR, Minarich MJ, Griffin R, et al. . Physician derived versus administrative data in identifying surgical complications: fact versus fiction. Am J Surg. 2019;217(3):447-451. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.08.015
    1. Alotaibi GS, Wu C, Senthilselvan A, McMurtry MS. The validity of ICD codes coupled with imaging procedure codes for identifying acute venous thromboembolism using administrative data. Vasc Med. 2015;20(4):364-368. doi:10.1177/1358863X15573839
    1. Higgins TL, Deshpande A, Zilberberg MD, et al. . Assessment of the accuracy of using ICD-9 diagnosis codes to identify pneumonia etiology in patients hospitalized with pneumonia. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e207750-e207750. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7750
    1. Schwab P, Karlen W. CXPlain: causal explanations for model interpretation under uncertainty. In: Wallach H, Larochelle H, Beygelzimer A, Garnett R, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Vol 32. Curran Associates; 2019:10220-10230.
    1. Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. “Why should I trust you?”: explaining the predictions of any classifier. arXiv. Preprint posted online August 9, 2016.
    1. Aas K, Jullum M, Løland A. Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: more accurate approximations to Shapley values. arXiv. Preprint posted online February 6, 2020.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir