Possible indications of beta-blockers in the perioperative period other than prevention of cardiac ischemia

According to the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2006 for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for non-cardiac surgery, beta-blocker therapy should be considered for high-risk individuals undergoing vascular surgery or high- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This guideline might induce physicians to increasingly use beta-blockers in the hope of preventing perioperative cardiac complications. However, beta-blockers have potential beneficial effects outside the prevention of cardiac events. In addition to reducing anesthetic and analgesic requirements during the perioperative period, beta-blockers have neuroprotective effects in patients with brain trauma and possible effectiveness in the management of intraoperative awareness-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, intrathecal administration of beta-blockers may have antinociceptive effects. Physicians need to bear in mind the benefits of beta-blockers for purposes other than preventing cardiac events when applied in the perioperative period, and they should be familiar with the pharmacodynamics and risk–benefit ratio with their use. This review focuses on possible extracardiac indications of beta-blockers.     

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative assessment guidelines reduce resource utilization before aortic surgery

BACKGROUND: Methods used for evaluation of cardiac risk before noncardiac surgery vary widely. We evaluated the effect over time on practice and resource utilization of implementing the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines on Preoperative Risk Assessment. METHODS: We compared 102 historical control patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery (from January 1993 to December 1994) with 94 consecutive patients after guideline implementation (from July 1995 to December 1996) and 104 patients in a late after guideline implementation (from July 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998). Resource use (testing, revascularization, and costs) and outcomes (perioperative death and myocardial infarction) were examined. Patients with and without clinical markers of risk for perioperative cardiac complications were compared. RESULTS: The use of preoperative stress testing (88% to 47%; P <.00001), cardiac catheterization (24% to 11%; P <.05), and coronary revascularization (25% to 2%; P <.00001) decreased between control and postguideline groups, respectively. These changes persisted in the late postguideline group. Mean preoperative evaluation costs also fell ($1087 versus $171; P <.0001). Outcomes of death (4% versus 3% versus 2%) and myocardial infarction (7% versus 3% versus 5%) were not significantly different between control, postguideline, and late postguideline groups, respectively. Stress test rates were similar for patients at low risk versus high risk in the historical control group (84% versus 91%; P =.29) but lower for patients at low risk after guideline implementation (31% versus 61%; P =.003). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiac risk assessment guidelines appropriately reduced resource use and costs in patients who underwent elective aortic surgery without affecting outcomes. This effect was sustained 2 years after guideline implementation.     

Preoperative cardiac evaluation of the vascular surgery patient--an anesthesia perspective

The morbidity and mortality associated with vascular surgery procedures are largely the results of cardiac events. National guidelines have been regularly proposed and updated by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) to ensure optimal perioperative management and risk stratification. Controversy remains between experts and other cardiology societies regarding several patient care issues including revascularization before surgery, timing of β-blocker therapy, and the administration of antiplatelet therapy. Several landmark articles recently published have helped to modify the guidelines in the hope of improving vascular patient outcomes. In this review, we searched all recent available literature pertaining to perioperative cardiac evaluation before major vascular surgery. We propose an algorithm for preoperative cardiac evaluation, which is a modification to the AHA recommendations. Incorporated in this algorithm are recent published pivotal articles that can help in guiding physicians caring for the vascular patient requiring major operative or endovascular interventions.     

Should my outpatient center have a beta-blocker protocol?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Perioperative beta-blockade has been advocated by multiple authors and recent guidelines as a strategy to reduce cardiac risk in noncardiac surgery. Knowledge about application of this treatment modality to the ambulatory surgery population is poor. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the initial trial in patients with a positive stress test undergoing major vascular surgery demonstrated significantly fewer perioperative cardiac events among those randomized to perioperative beta-blocker therapy, more recent studies in patients without documented coronary artery disease undergoing major noncardiac surgical procedures were unable to demonstrate efficacy. Guidelines from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology have been reported and advocated class I recommendations for perioperative beta-blockade only for patients previously taking beta-blockers and those patients with a positive stress test undergoing vascular surgery. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation in low-risk surgery. SUMMARY: Based upon the available evidence and guidelines, patients currently taking beta-blockers and undergoing ambulatory surgery should continue these agents and protocols employing this strategy should be beneficial. In patients who are not currently taking beta-blockers and in whom long-term therapy is not warranted, current evidence does not support instituting prophylactic therapy in the ambulatory surgery population.     

Perioperatives kardiales Vorgehen bei nichtkardiochirurgischen Eingriffen

Since November 2009, the first European guidelines on perioperative cardiac care for non-cardiac surgery have been published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). The following article will describe the most important recommendations of these guidelines and discuss the clinically relevant differences to the corresponding recommendations of the current guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA).     

Low utility of dobutamine stress echocardiograms in the preoperative evaluation of patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery

In this study, we examined the utility of preoperative dobutamine stress echocardiograms (DSE) obtained for 85 patients in accordance with guidelines published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The medical record of each patient was reviewed to identify the clinical criteria that indicated the need for a DSE, the DSE results, therapeutic interventions rendered as a result of the DSE, and any perioperative cardiac morbidity. The DSE was positive for inducible ischemia in 4 patients (4.7%), negative in 74 (87.1%), and nondiagnostic in 7 (8.2%). DSEs that were obtained for 48 patients because of a history of diabetes mellitus, mild angina, or "minor clinical predictors" produced only negative results. Of the four patients with positive DSE results, three underwent coronary angiography, and one of those three underwent bypass grafting before surgery. An additional 29 patients received a preoperative DSE but were excluded from the study because the criteria for ordering the DSE did not meet the ACC/AHA guidelines. No patient had any perioperative morbidity related to myocardial ischemia. The total patient charge for the 85 DSEs obtained at our institution was US$104,635. Use of the ACC/AHA guidelines for preoperative DSEs does not appear to be cost-effective. However, the current algorithm could be significantly improved by altering the criteria for obtaining preoperative DSEs. IMPLICATIONS: This study was a retrospective review of 85 patient charts that found a low cost-effectiveness of using American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for obtaining preoperative dobutamine stress echocardiograms. Suggested modifications of these guidelines should improve their specificity with no loss in sensitivity.     

Cardiac risk assessment in noncardiac thoracic surgery

Preoperative cardiac risk assessment for noncardiac thoracic surgery is limited by the lack of data specific to this type of surgery, especially prospective, controlled data. However, the value of clinical predictors in determining accurate postoperative cardiac outcomes is a reliable tool. Thus, the approach is similar to traditional cardiac risk assessment for noncardiac surgery. The essential elements of cardiovascular evaluation as it pertains to noncardiac thoracic surgery are reviewed with a specific focus on coronary artery disease, perioperative arrhythmias, and selected topics relevant to noncardiac thoracic surgery. The core recommendations of the clinical guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association are discussed in the context of noncardiac thoracic surgery.     

A validated simple model to predict coexistent coronary disease in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery

OBJECTIVE: The primary limitation of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines is specificity. To improve the selection process, we proposed a simple additive model including age (1 point for every 5 years above 50), male sex (2 points), hypercholesterolemia (2 points), angina (3 points), and electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia (3 points). We recommend screening angiography at 3 or more points. This model was previously derived from 359 patients at Papworth Hospital. METHODS: The validation cohort was a consecutive series of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery at the Royal Brompton Hospital. Preoperative coronary angiography reports were obtained, and coronary disease was defined as luminal narrowing of 50% in 2 or more views. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology criteria, the simple additive model, and a logistic regression model. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to validate accuracy and compare discrimination with logistic regression. RESULTS: From 1998 through 2003, angiographic details were available for 342 (86%) of 396 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery. The sensitivity and specificity of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines were 100% and 5%, respectively; those of the simple additive model were 91% and 44%, respectively; and those of logistic regression were 93% and 41%, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic areas for the simple additive and logistic regression model were 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.84) and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the third independent cohort to highlight the poor specificity of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Although high sensitivity is achieved, the cost is the majority of patients requiring screening angiography. Our validated simple model improved the specificity and selection; however, this was achieved at the expense of decreased sensitivity.     

Surgery for esophageal cancer complicate with cardiovascular disease

A risk of cardiac complications is one of the most significant risks to patient undergoing major surgery. Especially, for the patients with cancer, the preoperative management can be complex. The direct effect of cancer and side effect of prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy should be considered. The 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association( ACC/AHA) guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery concluded that 3 elements must be assessed to determine the risk of cardiac event. The preoperative risk in a patient is initially assessed by the presence or absence of clinical predictors of increased perioperative cardiovascular risk, the patient's level of cardiac function, and the underlying risk of the surgical procedure. Here we will provide an overview of issue that are relevant to patients with esophageal cancer.     

Guidelines for cardiac management in noncardiac surgery are poorly implemented in clinical practice: results from a peripheral vascular survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery recommend an algorithm for a stepwise approach to preoperative cardiac assessment in vascular surgery patients. The authors' main objective was to determine adherence to the ACC/AHA guidelines on perioperative care in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Between May and December 2004, data on 711 consecutive peripheral vascular surgery patients were collected from 11 hospitals in The Netherlands. This survey was conducted within the infrastructure of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. The authors retrospectively applied the ACC/AHA guideline algorithm to each patient in their data set and subsequently compared observed clinical practice data with these recommendations. RESULTS: Although 185 of the total 711 patients (26%) fulfilled the ACC/AHA guideline criteria to recommend preoperative noninvasive cardiac testing, clinicians had performed testing in only 38 of those cases (21%). Conversely, of the 526 patients for whom noninvasive testing was not recommended, guidelines were followed in 467 patients (89%). Overall, patients who had not been tested, irrespective of guideline recommendation, received less cardioprotective medications, whereas patients who underwent noninvasive testing were significantly more often treated with cardiovascular drugs (beta-blockers 43% vs. 77%, statins 52% vs. 83%, platelet inhibitors 80% vs. 85%, respectively; all P < 0.05). Moreover, the authors did not observe significant differences in cardiovascular medical therapy between patients with a normal test result and patients with an abnormal test result. CONCLUSION: This survey showed poor agreement between ACC/AHA guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. Only one of each five patients underwent noninvasive testing when recommended. Furthermore, patients who had not undergone testing despite recommendations received as little cardiac management as the low-risk population.     

Are the incidences of cardiac events during noncardiac surgery in Japan the same as in the United States and Europe?

In Japan, an ever-present problem in the preoperative evaluation of patients with ischemic heart disease is that although such evaluations are based on Western data, these data serve as the basis for determining perioperative risk in Japanese patients. To remedy this problem, the Cardiac Ischemia and Anesthesia Research Committee was formed in 1997 and has conducted studies of perioperative complications in noncardiac surgery in Japan. In two retrospective studies in 1997, the proportions of patients with ischemic heart disease were 3.9% and 3.1%, approximately one tenth the rates reported in Europe and the United States. The incidences of perioperative cardiac complications in patients with ischemic heart disease were 16.4% and 13.2%, not widely divergent from rates reported in Europe and the United States. To investigate the baseline characteristics involved in perioperative complications, we conducted a prospective study of 237 patients classified as having intermediate risk for perioperative cardiac complications according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery. We found that the prominent factor in intraoperative cardiac complications was the presence of hypertension (odds ratio = 2.911). Factors contributing to postoperative cardiac complications included those reflecting coronary lesion severity and cardiac dysfunction (history of heart failure; odds ratio = 6.884, coronary risk index grade; odds ratio = 2.884, and a history of intervention; odds ratio = 4.774).     

Critical appraisal of cardiac risk stratification before elective vascular surgery

This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of the cardiac risk stratification protocol proposed by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in predicting cardiac morbidity and mortality associated with elective, major arterial surgery. Cardiac risk stratification using ACC/AHA guidelines was done on 425 consecutive patients before 481 elective cerebrovascular (n = 146), aortic/inflow (n = 166), or infrainguinal (n = 169) procedures at an academic Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Cardiac risk was stratified as low, intermediate, or high based on clinical risk factors, such as, Eagle criteria, history of cardiac intervention, patient functional status, results of noninvasive cardiac stress testing, and coronary angiography with coronary revascularization performed when appropriate. Outcomes (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiac death, and mortality) within 30 days of surgery were compared between the various risk stratification groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify clinically useful prognostic variables from the preoperative cardiac evaluation algorithm. Overall mortality (1.7%), cardiac death (0.4%), and adverse cardiac event (4.8%) rates were low, but cardiac death and morbidity were increased (p < 0.05) in high-risk stratified patients (3.4%, 11.9%) compared to intermediate (0%, 2.8%) and low (0%, 4.0%) cardiac risk groups. The presence of 3-vessel angiographic coronary artery occlusive disease was an independent predictor of cardiac morbidity, while inducible ischemia by cardiac stress imaging was not. Previous coronary revascularization was associated with increased mortality as was the development of a non-cardiac complication. Cardiac risk assessment identified 78 (18%) patients with indications for coronary angiography. Angiographic findings resulted in coronary artery intervention (9-angioplasty; 4-bypass grafting) in 13 (3%) patients who experienced no adverse cardiac events after the planned vascular surgery (15 procedures). Cardiac risk stratification using ACC/AHA guidelines can predict adverse cardiac events associated with elective vascular surgery; however, protocol modification by increased reliance on Eagle criteria and less use of cardiac stress testing can improve identification of the "highest risk" patients who may benefit from prophylactic coronary intervention.     

Guidelines for perioperative cardiac evaluation from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force are effective for stratifying cardiac risk before aortic surgery

PURPOSE: We assessed whether the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) task force guidelines for perioperative cardiac evaluation could reliably stratify cardiac risk before aortic surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively applied the guidelines to a closed database, set up prospectively. The setting was a referral center in an institutional practice with hospitalized patients. The closed database included 133 patients who had a routine cardiac examination, which comprised an estimation of functional capacity and noninvasive testing, before aortic surgery. This cardiac evaluation led to the proposal of coronarography in 23 patients and to treating an underlying coronary artery disease in 21 patients (including three myocardial revascularizations). One patient died after myocardial revascularization, and two patients died of cardiac causes after aortic surgery. The algorithm of the ACC/AHA guidelines was applied independently by two investigators to each patient's file that was included in the existing database. The main outcome measure was a comparison between cardiac risk stratification with the ACC/AHA guidelines and the results of the routine cardiac evaluation. RESULTS: The ACC/AHA guidelines were successfully applied to all 133 files by the two investigators. After applying the algorithm, 73 patients were stratified as low cardiac risk, and 60 patients were stratified as high risk. The 21 patients who had undergone a preoperative coronary artery disease optimization were stratified as high risk by means of the ACC/AHA guidelines. The patients who died from cardiac causes were stratified as high risk by means of the ACC/AHA guidelines, whereas none of the patients stratified as low risk died during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The ACC/AHA guidelines were effective in stratifying cardiac risk by using clinical predictors and an estimate of the physical capacity of the patient. Their use may allow a reduction in unnecessary noninvasive testing in patients stratified as being at low risk, while permitting the selection of all patients likely to benefit from preoperative coronary artery disease optimization.     

Guidelines for Cardiac Management in Noncardiac Surgery Are Poorly Implemented in Clinical Practice: Results from a Peripheral Vascular Survey in The Netherlands

Background: The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery recommend an algorithm for a stepwise approach to preoperative cardiac assessment in vascular surgery patients. The authors' main objective was to determine adherence to the ACC/AHA guidelines on perioperative care in daily clinical practice.

Methods: Between May and December 2004, data on 711 consecutive peripheral vascular surgery patients were collected from 11 hospitals in The Netherlands. This survey was conducted within the infrastructure of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. The authors retrospectively applied the ACC/AHA guideline algorithm to each patient in their data set and subsequently compared observed clinical practice data with these recommendations.

Results: Although 185 of the total 711 patients (26%) fulfilled the ACC/AHA guideline criteria to recommend preoperative noninvasive cardiac testing, clinicians had performed testing in only 38 of those cases (21%). Conversely, of the 526 patients for whom noninvasive testing was not recommended, guidelines were followed in 467 patients (89%). Overall, patients who had not been tested, irrespective of guideline recommendation, received less cardioprotective medications, whereas patients who underwent noninvasive testing were significantly more often treated with cardiovascular drugs ([beta]-blockers 43% vs. 77%, statins 52% vs. 83%, platelet inhibitors 80% vs. 85%, respectively; all P < 0.05). Moreover, the authors did not observe significant differences in cardiovascular medical therapy between patients with a normal test result and patients with an abnormal test result.     

Implementing ACC/AHA guidelines for the preoperative management of patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for noncardiac surgery: effect on perioperative outcome

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To review the new consensus guidelines for cardiac testing for the patient with cardiac disease scheduled for elective, noncardiac surgery, and their impact on cardiac functional testing. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review study. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: 181 patients scheduled for elective, major surgery who met American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) criteria for a preoperative stress test. INTERVENTIONS: A variety of tests were ordered, including treadmill stress testing, persantine-thallium imaging, dobutamine echocardiography, and exercise stress echocardiography. MEASUREMENTS: The numbers of and outcome of the stress tests and the cardiac outcome of the patients who underwent cardiac testing and surgery were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Abnormal tests occurred in 27 patients. Two patients declined treatment, eight patients had primary medical management, and the remainder (17) had cardiac catheterization. Results included no lesion (2 patients), angioplasty (4 patients), angioplasty plus stenting (1 patient), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (4 patients), and delineated lesions treated with medical optimization (6 patients). One patient had CABG and declined further surgery. One patient had myocardial infarction 6 months after surgery that was treated by medical management after cardiac catheterization. The other 23 patients had surgery without cardiac complication within 1 year of surgery. Only 15% (27/180) of the patients with indications for a stress test had a positive result. Even fewer patients had any alteration of the perioperative period. Despite this finding, cardiac morbidity was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines for stress test may be over-sensitive, and further prospective clinical studies are indicated.     

Perioperative- and long-term mortality rates after major vascular surgery: the relationship to preoperative testing in the medicare population.

Debate continues regarding the value of cardiovascular testing and coronary revascularization before major vascular surgery. Whereas recent guidelines have advocated selective preoperative testing, several authors have suggested that it is no longer necessary in an era of low perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality. We used data from a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries to determine the mortality rate after vascular surgery, based on the use of preoperative cardiac testing. A 5% nationally random sample of the aged Medicare population for the final 6 mo of 1991 and first 11 mo of 1992 was used to identify a cohort of patients who underwent elective infrainguinal or abdominal aortic reconstructive surgery. Use within the first 6 mo of 1991 was reviewed to determine if preoperative noninvasive cardiovascular imaging or coronary revascularization was performed. Thirty-day (perioperative) and 1-yr mortalities were assessed. Perioperative mortality was significantly increased for aortic surgery (209 of 2865 or 7.3%), compared with infrainguinal surgery (232 of 4030 or 5.8%); however, 1-yr mortality was significantly increased for infrainguinal surgery (16.3% vs 11.3%, P < 0.05). Stress testing, with or without coronary revascularization, was associated with improved short-and long-term survival in aortic surgery. The use of stress testing with coronary revascularization was not associated with reduced perioperative mortality after infrainguinal surgery. Stress testing alone was associated with reduced long-term mortality in patients undergoing infrainguinal revascularization. IMPLICATIONS: Analysis of the Medicare Claims database suggests that vascular surgery is associated with substantial perioperative and long-term mortality. The reduced long-term mortality in patients who had previously undergone preoperative testing and coronary revascularization reinforces the need for a prospective evaluation of these practices.     

Limitations in the cardiac risk reduction provided by coronary revascularization prior to elective vascular surgery

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the proposed cardiac protective effect of previous coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA]) before elective major arterial surgery. METHOD: Preoperative cardiac risk stratification using American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines was done on 425 consecutive patients undergoing 481 elective major vascular operations at an academic VA Medical Center. The algorithm assumed asymptomatic patients with prior coronary revascularization (CABG, <5 year; PTCA, <2 year) were low cardiac risk. Coronary angiography was done for recurrent symptoms with secondary intervention when appropriate. Outcomes (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiac death, and mortality) within 30 days of vascular surgery were compared between patients with and without previous CABG or PTCA by contingency table and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was classified as recent (CABG, <1 year; PTCA, <6 months) in 35 cases (7%), prior (1 year < or = CABG < 5 year, 6 months < or = PTCA < 2 year) in 45 cases (9%), and remote (CABG, > or = 5 year; PTCA, > or = 2 year) in 48 cases (10%). A larger fraction of patients with previous revascularization possessed pathologic cardiac risk variables and were stratified as high-risk preoperatively than their nonrevascularized counterparts. Outcomes in patients with previous PTCA were similar to those after CABG (P =.7). Significant differences in adverse cardiac events (P =.01) and mortality (P =.05) were found between patients with CABG done within 5 years or PTCA within 2 years (6.3%, 1.3%, respectively), individuals with remote revascularization (10.4%, 6.3%), and nonrevascularized patients stratified at high risk (13.3%, 3.3%) or intermediate/low (2.8%, 0.9%) risk. De novo or recurrent 3-vessel coronary disease by angiography, but not the presence or timing of previous revascularization, was an independent predictor of cardiac events after vascular operations, whereas remote revascularization was associated with fatal outcomes by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Previous coronary revascularization (CABG, <5 years; PTCA, <2 years) may provide only modest protection against adverse cardiac events and mortality following major arterial reconstruction.     

ACC/AHA guidelines as predictors of postoperative cardiac outcomes

PURPOSE: Recently, the American College of Cardiology - American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) published guidelines and an associated algorithm for preoperative cardiovascular evaluation of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Our purpose was to (i) test guideline's ability to predict adverse cardiac events within seven days after surgery, (ii) determine whether medical clinical predictors or surgical risks was a better predictor of cardiac events. METHODS: Retrospective review of 119 cardiology and anesthesia consultations over 15 mo, ending March 31, 1998. Patients were classified into their respective medical clinical predictor and surgical risk groups, as outlined in ACC-AHA guidelines. Associations between the medical predictor and surgical risk scores and adverse cardiac outcomes were quantified via multiple logistic regression analysis. Two outcomes were employed. Outcome I, included: myocardial infarction/ischemia; angina; congestive heart failure, arrhythmia or death. Outcome 2 expanded the definition to include "cancellation of surgery due to cardiac risk" as a negative cardiac outcome. RESULTS: Diabetes, Canadian Cardiovascular Class (CCS) III or IV angina, and MI within six months before surgery were strongly associated with the two cardiac outcomes. For outcome 1 and 2, medical predictors and surgical risks, considered simultaneously, performed with a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 46-51%. When considered separately, major clinical medical predictors had a sensitivity of 87-89%, while surgical risks showed a specificity of 89% in predicting the two outcomes. CONCLUSION: Medical predictors in ACC-AHA classification scheme were highly sensitive whereas surgical risks were more specific in predicting adverse post-operative cardiac events. Prospective study is needed to confirm these observations.     

Preoperative and preooperative issuesin the orthopaedic surgical patient

Elderly patients account for most cases of hip fracture, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement surgery. Although surgery in the elderly is associated with greater risk than in younger patients, this risk is due primarily to comorbidities and not to the normal aging process. Careful preoperative evaluation is required and should focus on optimizing the status of patients' chronic medical problems and on assessing their degree of risk of a perioperative cardiac event. The algorithm published by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association is presently the best tool available for such assessment. Postoperatively, the elderly are at increased risk for multiple complications, of which delirium and adverse drug reactions are the most common. The elderly are also more likely to require posthospital rehabilitation in an institutional setting. With advance planning and careful monitoring, the great majority of elderly patients can safely undergo any surgical procedure.     

The value of preoperative pharmacologic stress testing before vascular surgery using ACC/AHA guidelines: a prospective, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of preoperative cardiac stress testing using clinical predictors from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines on Perioperative Evaluation before Noncardiac Surgery in patients undergoing vascular surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized pilot study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic, infrainguinal, and carotid vascular surgery. INTERVENTIONS: After stratification by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline parameters, 99 patients were randomized to preoperative cardiac stress testing or to no stress testing and followed for up to 12 months postoperatively for adverse cardiac outcomes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Before hospital discharge of 46 patients who underwent preoperative stress testing, 7 (15%) had inducible ischemia with no adverse postoperative cardiac outcomes, whereas only 1 (3%) of 39 patients (85%) with no ischemia had a nonfatal adverse cardiac outcome (p = not significant). Of 53 patients without preoperative stress testing, only 2 (4%) had a nonfatal adverse postoperative cardiac outcome. There were no cardiac deaths. At 12-month follow-up in 79 (80%) patients, there was 1 nonfatal adverse cardiac outcome (no stress test) and 1 cardiac death (abnormal stress test), reflecting a 1% 12-month cardiac morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: In this small prospective, randomized study evaluating the validity of preoperative cardiac stress testing using ACC/AHA Guidelines before major vascular surgery, preoperative cardiac stress testing offered no incremental value for determining postoperative adverse cardiac outcomes. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.