Defining the Intrinsic Cardiac Risks of Operations to Improve Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Current preoperative cardiac risk stratification practices group operations into broad categories, which might inadequately consider the intrinsic cardiac risks of individual operations. We sought to define the intrinsic cardiac risks of individual operations and to demonstrate how grouping operations might lead to imprecise estimates of perioperative cardiac risk. METHODS: Elective operations (based on Common Procedural Terminology codes) performed from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 at hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were studied. A composite measure of perioperative adverse cardiac events was defined as either cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation or acute myocardial infarction. Operations' intrinsic cardiac risks were derived from mixed-effects models while controlling for patient mix. Resultant risks were sorted into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, and the most commonly performed operations within each category were identified. Intrinsic operative risks were also examined using a representative grouping of operations to portray within-group variation. RESULTS: Sixty-six low, 30 intermediate, and 106 high intrinsic cardiac risk operations were identified. Excisional breast biopsy had the lowest intrinsic cardiac risk (overall rate, 0.01%; odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.25) relative to the average, whereas aorto-bifemoral bypass grafting had the highest (overall rate, 4.1%; odds ratio, 6.61; 95% CI, 5.54 to 7.90). There was wide variation in the intrinsic cardiac risks of operations within the representative grouping (median odds ratio, 1.40; interquartile range, 0.88 to 2.17). CONCLUSIONS: A continuum of intrinsic cardiac risk exists among operations. Grouping operations into broad categories inadequately accounts for the intrinsic cardiac risk of individual operations.

Venous thromboembolism after diaphragm pacing in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are prone to venous thromboembolism (VTE) and secondary complications. Because there is an increased incidence of VTE after surgical procedures, placement of a Diaphragm Pacing System (DPS) in ALS patients as treatment for respiratory muscle weakness could potentially increase the incidence of VTE, especially in patients with limited mobility. METHODS: We implanted a DPS in 10 ALS patients who met the criteria for this procedure. They underwent a preoperative evaluation as recommended by the guidelines. RESULTS: We report 2 patients with no symptoms of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) before the surgical procedure who then developed perioperative VTE. CONCLUSIONS: These patients highlight the need to consider preoperative screening for DVT and postoperative thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ALS patients who undergo DPS placement.

Preanesthesia evaluation for ambulatory surgery: do we make a difference?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ambulatory surgery is considered low risk; however, both surgery-related and patient-related factors combine to determine the overall risk of a procedure. The preanesthesia evaluation is useful to gather information and determine whether additional testing or medical optimization is necessary prior to surgery with the goal to prevent adverse events and improve outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature focused on the preanesthesia evaluation provides guidelines for patient-centered testing. Routine, protocolized preoperative testing is expensive and has not shown to improve outcomes. The preanesthesia visit is useful for patient evaluation, not specifically testing, but for the synthesis of information, medical optimization, additional targeted testing if indicated, assessment of risk, and plan for perioperative management. SUMMARY: Current literature supports a preanesthesia visit that focuses on individual patient evaluations and patient-directed effective interventions. This is in contrast to the previous routine, protocolized preoperative preparations. The challenge for anesthesiologists lies in understanding both surgery-specific and patient-specific risk factors, and targeting interventions to optimize the outcomes.

Validation of a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic: a pilot study.

Patients scheduled for surgery at the Omaha VA Medical Center were evaluated preoperatively via telemedicine. Following the examination, patients filled out a 15 item, 5 point Likert scale questionnaire regarding their opinion of preoperative evaluation in a VTC format. Evaluations were performed under the direction of nationally recognized guidelines and recommendations of experts in the field of perioperative medicine and were overseen by a staff anesthesiologist from the Omaha VA Medical Center. No significant difficulties were encountered by the patient or the evaluator regarding the quality of the audio/visual capabilities of the VTC link and its ability to facilitate preoperative evaluation. 87.5% of patients felt that virtual evaluation would save them travel time; 87.5% felt virtual evaluation could save them money; 7.3% felt uncomfortable using the VTC link; 12.2% felt the virtual evaluation took longer than expected; 70.7% preferred to be evaluated via VTC link; 21.9% were undecided; 9.7% felt they would rather be evaluated face-to-face with 26.8% undecided; 85.0% felt that teleconsultation was as good as being seen at the Omaha surgical evaluation unit; 7.5% were undecided. Our study has shown that effective preoperative evaluation can be performed using a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic; patients are receptive to the VTC format and, in the majority of cases, prefer it to face-to-face evaluation.