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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The value of radionuclide angiography as a predictor of perioperative myocardial infarction in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm resection

To define the group of patients at high risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and death associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, resting gated blood pool studies were obtained on 50 such aneurysm patients preoperatively. The results indicated that three groups could be distinguished among these patients by cardiac ejection fraction. Group I (n = 25) had preoperative ejection fractions ranging from 56% to 85%. None of the patients in group I suffered an acute perioperative MI. Group II (n = 20) comprised patients with ejection fractions ranging from 36% to 55%. There was a 20% incidence of MI in group II but no cardiac deaths. Group III included five patients with ejection fractions ranging from 27% to 35%. There was an 80% incidence of perioperative MI in these patients, with one cardiac death and one cardiac arrest. All perioperative MIs occurred within the first 48 hours after surgery. In addition there was a 50% incidence of perioperative MI among all those patients who were 80 years of age or older. These results indicate guidelines for the management of patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair based on their preoperative ejection fraction. The data further suggest that the noninvasive gated blood pool method of determining ejection fraction may serve a more broadly useful function in helping to determine which of those patients about to undergo major surgical procedures are at high risk for perioperative MI.     

Preoperative cardiac risk assessment: an updated approach.

HYPOTHESIS: We provide an updated algorithm for approaching preoperative cardiac risk assessment in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: A National Library of Medicine PubMed literature search was performed dating back to 1985 using the keywords "preoperative cardiac risk for noncardiac surgery." This search was restricted to English language articles involving human subjects. RESULTS: Patient-specific and operation-specific cardiac risk can be determined clinically. Patients with major cardiac risk factors have a high incidence of perioperative cardiac complications, whereas the risk is less than 3% for low-risk patients. For intermediate-risk patients, no prospective randomized studies demonstrate the efficacy of noninvasive stress testing (dipyridamole thallium or dobutamine echocardiography) or of subsequent coronary revascularization for preventing perioperative cardiac complications. Recent studies demonstrate that perioperative beta-blockade significantly reduces the adverse cardiac event rate in intermediate-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with high cardiac risk should proceed with coronary angiography. Patients with low cardiac risk can proceed to surgery without noninvasive testing. For intermediate-risk patients, consideration may be given to further stress testing prior to surgery; however, in most patients, proceeding to surgery with perioperative beta-blockade is an acceptable alternative.     

Evaluation,severity and prognostic significance of silent myocardial ischaemia in vascular patients

This paper intends to make an update of recent publications and guidelines for evaluation in coronary symptom-free patients undergoing vascular surgery. It emphasizes the role of preoperative clinical evaluation that should identify the most appropriate testing, and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment. Selective preoperative coronary artery disease screening and revascularization achieve excellent perioperative and late results after high-risk vascular surgery. Supplemental preoperative evaluation is discussed (exercise ECG, stress echocardiography and stress tomoscintigraphy). Asymptomatic patients with good functional capacity can undergo intermediate-risk surgery without further non-invasive testing. Conversely, further noninvasive testing is often considered for patients with poor functional capacity or moderate functional capacity but higher-risk surgery especially for patients with 2 or more intermediate risk predictors. Additional testing may be considered on an individual basis for patients without clinical markers but with poor functional capacity prior to vascular surgery, particularly those with several minor clinical risk predictors. Because of a higher prevalence of silent myocardial ischaemia in diabetes mellitus, these patients require specific care. Until further data are available, indications for myocardial revascularization in the perioperative setting are similar to those in the ACC/AHA guidelines for use of myocardial revascularization in general. General practitioners, cardiologists, angiologists, vascular surgeons and anaesthesiologists should collaborate and aim to slow down the progression of atherosclerosis by giving their patients an optimum secondary cardiovascular prevention.     

Evaluation,Severity and Prognostic Significance of Silent Myocardial Ischaemia in Vascular Patients

This paper intends to make an update of recent publications and guidelines for evaluation in coronary symptom-free patients undergoing vascular surgery. It emphasizes the role of preoperative clinical evaluation that should identify the most appropriate testing, and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment. Selective preoperative coronary artery disease screening and revascularization achieve excellent perioperative and late results after high-risk vascular surgery. Supplemental preoperative evaluation is discussed (exercise ECG, stress echocardiography and stress tomoscintigraphy). Asymptomatic patients with good functional capacity can undergo intermediate-risk surgery without further non-invasive testing. Conversely, further noninvasive testing is often considered for patients with poor functional capacity or moderate functional capacity but higher-risk surgery especially for patients with 2 or more intermediate risk predictors. Additional testing may be considered on an individual basis for patients without clinical markers but with poor functional capacity prior to vascular surgery, particularly those with several minor clinical risk predictors. Because of a higher prevalence of silent myocardial ischaemia in diabetes mellitus, these patients require specific care. Until further data are available, indications for myocardial revascularization in the perioperative setting are similar to those in the ACC/AHA guidelines for use of myocardial revascularization in general. General practioners, cardiologists, angiologists, vascular surgeons and anaes-thesiologists should collaborate and aim to slow down the progression of atherosclerosis by giving their patients an optimum secondary cardiovascular prevention.     

Ischemic heart disease

Because of changing demographics, increasing numbers of patients with IHD are presenting for noncardiac surgery, and the risks of perioperative morbidity and mortality are significant. The Lee Cardiac Risk Index is applicable in defining perioperative cardiac risk: however, ACC/AHA guidelines may not be applicable comprehensively. The role of biomarkers in risk stratification still needs to be defined. Structured management protocols that help assess, diagnose, and treat patients with IHD preoperatively are likely to help decrease postoperative morbidity and mortality, but clearly are not applicable to all patients. Augmented hemodynamic control with beta-blockers or alpha-2 agonists and modulating inflammation by statins can play an important role in improving outcomes in many patients with IHD; preoperative coronary revascularization may be of limited value. Intraoperative anesthetic management that minimizes hemodynamic perturbations is important; however, the choice of a particular technique typically is not critical. Of critical importance is the postoperative management of the patient. Postoperative myocardial injury should be identified, evaluated, and managed aggressively. Secondary stresses such as sepsis, extubation, and anemia, which can increase demand on the heart, should be treated or minimized. Clearly, optimal care of the patient with IHD entails closely coordinated assessment and management throughout the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, if one is to optimize short- and long-term outcomes.     

Lowering cardiac risk by preoperative interventions

Postoperative myocardial infarction still represents a serious complication in patients with coronary artery disease, after the first 48 hours following non cardiac surgery (NCS). To reduce the incidence, patient's status should be optimised, including CABG, PTCA and stenting, before the NCS. Indications for CABG, PTCA and stenting suggested by ACC/AHA are in general applicable also for NCS. Patients undergoing low and intermediate risk procedures would not benefit from extensive testing and CABG, while a potential benefit exists for high risk surgery in severe CAD patients. Revascularisation by means of PTCA seems to decrease the risk only if it is performed more than 90 days before the NCS. By the contrary, the combination of PTCA and stenting reduces incidence of coronary re-stenosis, but it increases bleeding, thrombosis and distal embolisation, especially if not supported by an anti-platelet or combined pharmacological schedule; therefore, perioperative stenting is not recommended to increase safety. Moreover, if NCS is urgent, despite a recent stenting, the patient should be included in a high risk group.     

非心脏手术围术期心脏事件危险评估与保护性干预

围术期心脏事件是非心脏手术围手术期严重并发症和死亡的重要原因。在临床广泛应用的修订心脏风险指数及ACC／AHA制定的非心脏手术围术期评估指南．可协助临床医生评价非心脏手术心脏风险并做出围术期诊治决策。β受体阻滞剂和他汀类药物可减少高危患者非心脏手术围术期心脏事件及死亡的发生,术前血管重建治疗对于严重冠心病患者是必要和有益的。     

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.     

Preoperative cardiac assessment using dobutamine stress echocardiography

Postoperative myocardial ischaemia is the leading cause of life expectancy impairment after high cardiac risk surgical procedures. Preoperative identification of patients at high risk for such complication helps reducing its postoperative incidence through therapeutic adjustments. The former relies upon preoperative selection of patients who are candidates for cardiac testing using dobutamine stress echocardiography, according to ACC/AHA guidelines. This exam evaluates echographic myocardial response to a pharmacological stress induced by dobutamine infusion. Its aim is to reproduce part of the stress the myocardium will undergo during surgical procedure. A stress induced myocardial ischaemia suggests such a complication could occur postoperatively. A positive dobutamine stress echocardiography justifies to prescribe preoperative anti-ischaemic treatment in order to reduce the cardiac risk of the further surgical procedure. Moreover, it justifies clear definition of perioperative haemodynamic objectives. Whatever the result of the dobutamine stress echocardiography, cardiac ischaemia should be monitored up to the third postoperative day on the basis of a daily 12-lead electrocardiogram recording and daily plasmatic troponin Ic measurement.     

Audit sur l’évaluation cardiaque préopératoire avant une chirurgie non cardiaque : utilité d’un aide-mémoire pour améliorer l’adhésion des anesthésistes aux recommandations de l’American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA)

Introduction

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines stratify perioperative cardiac risk according to clinical markers, functional capacity, and type of surgery. They help determining which patients are candidates for preoperative cardiac testing and optimizing the cost-effectiveness of the evaluation strategy. Auditing our preoperative anaesthetic screening practice revealed an exceedingly high rate of referrals to the cardiologists. A small pocket-size reminder was created in order to improve the adhesion of the anaesthesiologists to the recommendations of the ACC/AHA, and confirm or obviate the need for a formal preoperative specialized cardiology consultation. Another audit was conducted 1 year later in order to evaluate the effectiveness of this reminder.

Methods

The second audit was conducted over a period of 1 month. Recorded data included demographic characteristics, clinical predictors of cardiovascular risk, surgical risk, and the reasons for the cardiac evaluation by a cardiologist (as reported by the senior or junior anaesthesiologist). Results of this second audit were compared to those of the audit conducted a year earlier.

Results

During the first audit, a total of 654 patients were seen in the preoperative unit. Fifty-two patients were referred to a cardiologist during the study period (7.9%). Guidelines for cardiac assessment were respected in 7/52 patients (13.5%). During the second audit, 30 out of 787 patients (3.8%) screened in preoperative anaesthetic consultation unit were referred to the cardiologist. According to the ACC/AHA guidelines, 27/30 patients (90%) objectively needed a cardiology consultation due to the existence of a known previous heart disease.

Discussion

The use of the pocket reminder concerning the ACC/AHA recommendations significantly reduced both the total number of cardiology referrals, and the number of unjustified referrals. The use of a pocket guide may help in reducing both the cost and the postponement of scheduled surgery.     

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.     

围腹部手术期患者伴有心脏支架的处理策略

美国心脏病学会联合美国心脏协会(ACC/AHA)和欧洲的心脏协会(ESC)相继发布了非心脏手术围手术期心血管评估与治疗指南推荐,对心脏支架患者非心脏手术围手术期的治疗提出指导意见,但是对非心脏手术的时机选择、围手术期抗凝治疗等问题仍有争议。掌握心脏支架患者腹部围手术期的处理相关策略,对减少围手术期心脏相关并发症至关重要。     

Surgical results and perioperative complications in patients presenting lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases

Among 525 patients with lung cancer who underwent an operation between 1985 and 1998, 24 patients who also had a cardiovascular disease, most commonly ischemic heart disease. We gave all of these patients a preoperative assessment for ischemic heart disease, done according to a diagnostic flow chart. Eighteen patients (3.4%) were found to have IHD. We performed myocardial revascularization before or simultaneously with an operation for lung cancer in patients who also have known IHD. None of these patients had major perioperative cardiac trouble. Inspite of our efforts, perioperative myocardial ischemic events occurred in 6 patients (1.2% of all patients) who were not detected by our preoperative IHD assessment. We conclude that this IHD assessment flow chart may be useful for proper perioperative management of patients undergoing lung surgery. However, more precise methods to detect patients with IHD will be necessary to improve their perioperative cardiac risk.     

Preoperative cardiac evaluation does not improve or predict perioperative or late survival in asymptomatic diabetic patients undergoing elective infrainguinal arterial reconstruction

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing infrainguinal arterial reconstruction frequently have increased cardiac risk factors. Diabetic patients are often asymptomatic despite advanced cardiac disease. This study investigates whether preoperative cardiac testing improves the outcome in diabetic patients at risk for cardiac disease. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing lower-extremity arterial reconstructions in a 32-month period from July 1999 to February 2002. Of the 433 patients identified undergoing 539 procedures, 295 had diabetes mellitus and considered in this study. The patients were stratified into two groups according to the present American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) algorithm. We identified 140 patients with two or more of ACC (Eagle) criteria who met the inclusion criteria for a preoperative cardiac evaluation. These patients were separated into two groups: those undergoing a cardiac work-up (WU) according to the ACC/AHA algorithm and those not undergoing the recommended work-up (NWU). Outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, and length of hospitalization. Significance of association was assessed by the Fisher exact test. Length of hospitalization was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Survival data was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients met the criteria for moderate risk. There were 61 patients in the NWU group and 79 in the WU group. Ten patients in the WU group underwent preoperative coronary revascularization (6 had percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, 4 underwent coronary artery bypass grafting). There was no difference between perioperative mortality (WU, 1%; NWU, 2%; P = 1.00) or in postoperative cardiac morbidity, including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmia requiring treatment (WU, 5%; NWU, 6%; P = .71). There were no perioperative deaths and one episode of congestive heart failure in the group that had preoperative coronary revascularization. Median length of hospitalization was 10 days in the WU group and 8 days in the NWU group ( P = .11). Patient survival at 12 months for the NWU, WU, and revascularized groups was 85.3%, 78.5%, and 80.0%, respectively; 36-month survival was 73.6%, 62.9%, and 80.0%, respectively. The three survival curves did not differ significantly ( P = .209). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cardiac evaluation, as defined by the ACC/AHA algorithm, does not predict or improve postoperative morbidity, mortality, or 36-month survival in asymptomatic, diabetic patients undergoing elective lower-extremity arterial reconstruction. These data do not support the current ACC/AHA recommendations as a standard of care for diabetic patients with an intermediate clinical predictor who undergo peripheral arterial reconstruction, a high-risk surgical procedure.