Systematic Changes in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Over the Years Can Affect Comorbidity Indices Such as the Modified Frailty Index and Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index for Lumbar Fusion Studies
Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.Objective.
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of changes in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database over the years on the calculation of the modified Frailty Index (mFI) and the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) for posterior lumbar fusion studies.Summary of Background Data.
Multiple studies have utilized the mFI and/or mCCI and showed them to be predictors of adverse postoperative outcomes. However, changes in the NSQIP database have resulted in definition changes and/or missing data for many of the variables included in these indices. No studies have assessed the influence of different methods of treating missing values when calculating these indices on such studies.Methods.
Elective posterior lumbar fusions were identified in NSQIP from 2005 to 2014. The mFI was calculated for each patient using three methods: treating conditions for which data was missing as not present, dropping patients with missing values, and normalizing by dividing the raw score by the number of variables collected. The mCCI was calculated by the first two of these methods. Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores used for comparison.Results.
In total, 19,755 patients were identified. Mean ASA score increased between 2005 and 2014 from 2.27 to 2.50 (+10.1%). For each of the methods of data handling noted above, mean mFI over the years studied increased by 33.3%, could not be calculated, and increased by 183.3%, respectively. Mean mCCI increased by 31.2% and could not be calculated respectively.Conclusion.
Systematic changes in the NSQIP database have resulted in missing data for many of the variables included in the mFI and the mCCI and may affect studies utilizing these indices. These changes can be understood in the context of ASA trends, and raise questions regarding the use of these indices with data available in later NSQIP years.Conclusion.
Level of Evidence: 3