Präoperative Risikoevaluation erwachsener Patienten vor elektiven, nichtkardiochirurgischen Eingriffen

Anaesthesiologists' guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Surveys suggest a low level of implementation of clinical guidelines, although they are intended to improve the quality of treatment and patient safety. Which guideline recommendations are not followed and why has yet to be analysed. In this study, we investigate the proportion of European and national guidelines followed in the area of pre-operative anaesthetic evaluation prior to non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted this monocentric retrospective observational study at a German university hospital with the help of software that logically links guidelines in such a way that individualised recommendations can be derived from a patient's data. We included routine logs of 2003 patients who visited our pre-anaesthesia outpatient clinic between June 2018 and June 2020 and compared the actual conducted pre-operative examinations with the recommendations issued by the software. We descriptively analysed the data for examinations not performed that would have been recommended by the guidelines and examinations that were performed even though they were not covered by a guideline recommendation. The guidelines examined in this study are the 2018 ESAIC guidelines for pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on non-cardiac surgery and the German recommendations on pre-operative evaluation on non-cardiothoracic surgery from the year 2017.

RESULTS

Performed ECG (78.1%) and cardiac stress imaging tests (86.1%) indicated the highest guideline adherence. Greater adherence rates were associated with a higher ASA score (ASA I: 23.7%, ASA II: 41.1%, ASA III: 51.8%, ASA IV: 65.8%, P < 0.001), lower BMI and age > 65 years. Adherence rates in high-risk surgery (60.5%) were greater than in intermediate (46.5%) or low-risk (44.6%) surgery (P < 0.001). 67.2% of technical and laboratory tests performed preoperatively were not covered by a guideline recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation leaves room for improvement. Many performed pre-operative examinations, especially laboratory tests, are not recommended by the guidelines and may cause unnecessary costs. The reasons for guidelines not being followed may be the complexity of guidelines and organisational issues. A software-based decision support tool may be helpful.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04843202.

[Preoperative evaluation of adult patients before elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery : A joint recommendation of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the German Society for Surgery and the German Society for Internal Medicine]

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment.

Bedarfsanalyse zur Curriculumsentwicklung für die anästhesiologische Kreißsaalversorgung – eine deutschlandweite Umfrage

Hintergrund

Die anästhesiologische Tätigkeit in der Kreißsaalumgebung impliziert die Besonderheiten der 200 %-Letalität, die beschreibt, dass Notfallsituationen Mutter und Kind betreffen können. Ein Umstand, der die Notwendigkeit einer besonderen Sorgfalt in der Mitarbeiterausbildung und -auswahl eindrücklich unterstreicht. Gleichwohl existiert derzeit keine detaillierte Beschreibung der notwendigen Kompetenzen in dieser Arbeitsumgebung. Die vorliegende Studie soll die Ausbildungssituation in der anästhesiologischen Weiterbildung beschreiben und im Hinblick auf die Notwendigkeit eines Curriculums analysieren.

Methodik

In einer multizentrischen Beobachtungsstudie wurden Ärzt:innen in Weiterbildung (AiW) und ausbildende Fachärzt:innen (FÄ) nach Methoden der Einarbeitung, Feedbackgabe, übernommenen Tätigkeiten und Bedarf eines Curriculums befragt. Teilnehmende wurden über die Mitgliedsdatenbank der DGAI angeschrieben und konnten onlinebasiert den 11 Items umfassenden Fragebogen beantworten.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 495 Fragebogen (FÄ 329;166 AiW) abgeschlossen. Fachärzt:innen und AiW machen unterschiedliche Angaben zur Durchführung von Abschlussgesprächen (59,6 % vs. 10 %) und der Unterstützung durch ein Curriculum (76,3 % vs. 15,7 %). Unabhängig vom Weiterbildungsjahr werden von AiW Kaiserschnitte unter Supervisionsstufe „Rufweite“ durchgeführt. Die Periduralanästhesie (PDA) ist während der Einarbeitung die am seltensten durchgeführte Maßnahme. Beide Gruppen schätzen den Nutzen bzw. den Wert einer Beschreibung von Lernzielen und der Verfügbarkeit eines Curriculums als hoch ein.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Unterstützung der Einarbeitung wird von FÄ und AiW teilweise unterschiedlich beantwortet. Einzelne seltene durchgeführte Maßnahmen, wie die PDA, bedürfen künftig einer gesonderten Aufmerksamkeit. Die Beschreibung von Lernzielen und die Curriculumsentwicklung werden ausdrücklich gewünscht.

Zusatzmaterial online

Die Online-Version dieses Beitrags (10.1007/s00101-022-01172-1) enthält den Fragebogen zur Arbeit.

[Operation preparation in trauma surgery]

The success of a surgical procedure is significantly influenced by several critical factors. The safety of the patient is the primary goal. To this end, the term surgical preparation covers a number of procedures aiming to ensure the safety for the patient and a successful surgical intervention: verifying the indications, planning the intervention, identification of potential harmful factors, risks and countermeasures, patient education and documentation. Trauma surgery poses a particular challenge to preoperative preparation, especially due to urgent surgical interventions. Here, a standardized and evidence-based preoperative evaluation ensures a successful treatment of the patient.

[Implementation of emergency classifications-Where do we stand? : Results of a nationwide survey]

Hintergrund

Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist eine aktuelle Standortbestimmung im Hinblick auf die Umsetzung der Empfehlungen zur Klassifikation von Notfalloperationen, welche von den Verbänden BDA/DGAI, BDC/DGCH und VOPM im Jahr 2016 veröffentlicht wurden.

Methodik

In Anlehnung an die gemeinsamen Empfehlungen der Fachverbände wurden mithilfe eines Online-Fragebogens verschiedene organisatorische Aspekte der operativen Notfallversorgung untersucht. Hierzu wurden bundesweit OP-Manager/‑Koordinatoren an operativ tätigen Kliniken mit einer Mindestanzahl von 200 Betten befragt.

Ergebnisse

An der Umfrage beteiligten sich 274 der 550 angeschriebenen Kliniken (49,8 %). Die Empfehlungen werden aktuell in 70,7 % der Häuser umgesetzt. Die Auffassung, dass die Notfallklassifizierung die zeitgerechte Notfallversorgung von Patienten verbessert, teilt eine Mehrheit von 78,2 % der OP-Verantwortlichen. 33,6 % sind allerdings auch der Ansicht, dass die definierten Zeitintervalle zur Umsetzung der Notfälle die Möglichkeit einer subjektiven Auslegung bieten. Zusätzliche hausinterne Empfehlungen zu den am häufigsten auftretenden Notfallindikationen würden 80,1 % als hilfreich erachten; in 39,1 % der Häuser sind diese bereits implementiert. 65,2 % der Krankenhäuser halten für die Versorgung von Notfällen keine zusätzliche Notfallkapazität vor, 30,1 % arbeiten hingegen mit definierten Konzepten zur Sicherstellung der bedarfsgerechten Verfügbarkeit von Saalkapazitäten.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Empfehlungen zur Notfallklassifikation sind über alle Versorgungsstufen hinweg in der klinischen Realität Deutschlands angekommen und werden von der großen Mehrheit der OP-Verantwortlichen als hilfreiches Instrument in der OP-Koordination erachtet. Zusätzliche, indikationsbezogene Empfehlungen zur Klassifizierung der am häufigsten auftretenden Notfalleingriffe werden mehrheitlich befürwortet. Das Vorhalten eines definierten Notfallsaales ist entgegen bisherigen Annahmen in der deutschen Krankenhauslandschaft nahezu die Ausnahme.

Zusatzmaterial online

Die Online-Version dieses Beitrags (10.1007/s00101-021-00971-2) enthält den zugrunde liegenden Fragebogen. Beitrag und Zusatzmaterial stehen Ihnen auf www.springermedizin.de zur Verfügung. Bitte geben Sie dort den Beitragstitel in die Suche ein, das Zusatzmaterial finden Sie beim Beitrag unter „Ergänzende Inhalte“.

[CAVE - A checklist system for preoperative risk evaluation : Guideline-conform cardiopulmonary diagnostics before general and visceral surgical interventions]

BACKGROUND

Preoperative evaluation of patient risk is an essential component of patient preparation before surgery. Guidelines provide evidence-based algorithms for preoperative assessment of cardiac risk; however, even experienced physicians correctly apply evidence-based algorithms in only 50% of all cases or less.

OBJECTIVE

A checklist system for guideline-based cardiopulmonary risk evaluation in adult patients undergoing abdominal or visceral surgery (CAVE checklists) was created to assist in preoperative cardiopulmonary risk assessment and increase correct application of evidence-based algorithms before elective visceral surgery.

MATERIAL UND METHODS

International guidelines were transformed into a checklist system. These checklists were than evaluated in a department of general and visceral surgery. The main goal was to determine whether preoperative examinations, such as electrocardiograph (ECG), chest-x-ray, spirometry and advanced assessment by a cardiologist, are performed according to evidence-based guidelines. The frequency of recommended as well as unnecessary and missed examinations was assessed.

RESULTS

In this study 541 patients with a median age of 64.5 years (interquartile range: 52-73 years) were examined using the checklist system. Of the patients 90.4% underwent ECG and 98.5% chest-X-ray as recommended in the guidelines. Spirometry was not recommended in any patient and not performed in any case. Advanced assessment by a cardiologist was performed in 45.5% of cases as recommended in the guidelines. When guidelines did not recommend ECG, x‑ray, spirometry or advanced cardiac assessment, 69.4%, 99.6%, 99.3% and 99.8% of patients, respectively, actually did not receive these examinations. Only 2.8% of all patients did not receive an examination that was recommended by the guidelines: 1.5% ECG, 0.2% x‑ray and 1.1% advanced cardiological assessment. None of these patients suffered from postoperative cardiopulmonary complications.

CONCLUSION

These simple checklists are easy to use and provide a higher degree of evidence-based preoperative cardiopulmonary risk evaluation than previously reported in the literature. Adaptation of the checklists to changing guidelines is easy to perform. Whether the application of these checklists will result in a reduction of morbidity and costs have to be determined in further clinical trials.

[Management of anesthesia in endovascular interventions]

Cardiovascular diseases are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Germany. In these patients, the high-risk profile necessitates an interdisciplinary and multimodal approach to treatment. Endovascular interventions and vascular surgery have become established as an important element of this strategy in the past; however, the different anatomical localizations of pathological vascular alterations make it necessary to use a wide spectrum of procedural options and methods; therefore, the requirements for management of anesthesia are variable and necessitate a differentiated approach. Endovascular procedures can be carried out with the patient under general or regional anesthesia (RA); however, in the currently available literature there is no evidence for an advantage of RA over general anesthesia regarding morbidity and mortality, although a reduction in pulmonary complications could be found for some endovascular interventions. Epidural and spinal RA procedures should be carefully considered with respect to the risk-benefit ratio and consideration of the recent guidelines on anesthesia against the background of the current study situation and the regular use of therapy with anticoagulants. The following article elucidates the specific characteristics of anesthesia management as exemplified by some selected endovascular interventions.

Preoperative risk assessment--from routine tests to individualized investigation

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment in adults who are about to undergo elective surgery (other than cardiac and thoracic procedures) involves history-taking, physical examination, and ancillary studies performed for individual indications. Further testing beyond the history and physical examination is often of low predictive value for perioperative complications.

METHOD

This review is based on pertinent articles that were retrieved by a selective search in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases and on the consensus-derived recommendations of the German specialty societies.

RESULTS

The history and physical examination remain the central components of preoperative risk assessment. Advanced age is not, in itself, a reason for ancillary testing. Laboratory testing should be performed only if relevant organ disease is known or suspected, or to assess the potential side effects of pharmacotherapy. Electrocardiography as a screening test seems to add little relevant information, even in patients with stable heart disease. A chest X-ray should be obtained only if a disease is suspected whose detection would have clinical consequences in the perioperative period.

CONCLUSION

In preoperative risk assessment, the history and physical examination are the strongest predictors of perioperative complications. Ancillary tests are indicated on an individual basis if the history and physical examination reveal that significant disease may be present.