Preoperative evaluation in 2020: does exercise capacity fit into decision-making?

Multi-Modal Prehabilitation in Thoracic Surgery: From Basic Concepts to Practical Modalities

Over the last two decades, the invasiveness of thoracic surgery has decreased along with technological advances and better diagnostic tools, whereas the patient's comorbidities and frailty patterns have increased, as well as the number of early cancer stages that could benefit from curative resection. Poor aerobic fitness, nutritional defects, sarcopenia and "toxic" behaviors such as sedentary behavior, smoking and alcohol consumption are modifiable risk factors for major postoperative complications. The process of enhancing patients' physiological reserve in anticipation for surgery is referred to as prehabilitation. Components of prehabilitation programs include optimization of medical treatment, prescription of structured exercise program, correction of nutritional deficits and patient's education to adopt healthier behaviors. All patients may benefit from prehabilitation, which is part of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. Faster functional recovery is expected in low-risk patients, whereas better clinical outcome and shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated in higher risk and physically unfit patients.

Stair-Climbing Tests or Self-Reported Functional Capacity for Preoperative Pulmonary Risk Assessment in Patients with Known or Suspected COPD-A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study aims to determine whether preoperative stair-climbing tests (SCT) predict postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) better than self-reported poor functional capacity (SR_PFC) in patients with known or suspected COPD.

METHODS

A total of 320 patients undergoing scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery, 240 with verified COPD and 80 with GOLD key indicators but disproved COPD, underwent preoperative SR_PFC and SCT and were analyzed. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for variable selection. Two multivariable regression models were fitted, the SR_PFC model (baseline variables such as sociodemographic, surgical and procedural characteristics, medical preconditions, and GOLD key indicators plus SR_PFC) and the SCT model (baseline variables plus SCT_PFC).

RESULTS

Within all stair-climbing variables, LASSO exclusively selected self-reported poor functional capacity. The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with bias-corrected bootstrapping 95% confidence interval (95% CI) did not differ between the SR_PFC and SCT models (0.71; 0.65-0.77 for both models). SR_PFC was an independent risk factor (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.04-28.60; p = 0.045 in the SR_PFC model) but SCT_PFC was not (adjusted OR 3.78; 95% CI 0.87-16.34; p = 0.075 in the SCT model).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that preoperative SR_PFC adequately predicts PPC while additional preoperative SCTs are dispensable in patients with known or suspected COPD.

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Other Tests of Functional Capacity

Purpose of Review

Assessment of functional capacity is a cornerstone of preoperative risk assessment. While subjective clinician assessment of functional capacity is poorly predictive of postoperative outcomes, other objective functional assessment measures may provide more useful information.

Recent Findings

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is generally accepted as the gold standard for functional capacity assessment. However, CPET is resource-intensive and not universally available. Simpler objective tests of functional capacity such as the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the 6-min walk test (6MWT) are cheap and efficient. In addition, they predict important postoperative outcomes including death, disability, and myocardial infarction.

Summary

Simple preoperative tests such as the DASI may be useful for routine preoperative assessment. CPET may be helpful to investigate further patients with functional status limitation, and to guide prehabilitation and perioperative shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

Quantification of metabolic equivalents (METs) by the MET-REPAIR questionnaire: A validation study in patients with a high cardiovascular burden

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Quantifying functional capacity is a core component of preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment. Lower metabolic equivalents (METs) are associated with higher morbidity/mortality in non-surgical and surgical populations. However, actually measuring METs preoperatively is rare. We sought to determine the correlation of self-reported METs using the questionnaire of the MET: REevaluation for Perioperative cArdIac Risk (MET-REPAIR) study and objectively measured METs by gold-standard cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET).

DESIGN

Single-center prospective validation study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

We enrolled adult patients aged ≥45 undergoing out-patient cardiac rehabilitation.

INTERVENTION

Patients completed the MET-REPAIR Questionnaire and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), had blood samples drawn, and underwent undergoing routine CPET.

MEASUREMENTS

We compared measured METs by CPET to 1) self-reported METs (the MET-REPAIR Questionnaire), 2) the DASI score, 3) stand-alone questions, and 4) N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations.

MAIN RESULTS

140 patients were recruited. Measured METs by CPET correlated with 1) self-reported METs by the MET-REPAIR Questionnaire (ρ = 0.489, "fair"), 2) self-reported physical activity by the DASI (ρ = 0.487, "fair"), 3) the self-reported continual stair climbing ability (one of the stand-alone questions; ρ = 0.587, "fair") and 4) NT-proBNP concentrations (ρ = -0.353, "poor"). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the ability to perform more than 4 METs were: highest for flights of stairs (0.841 [95%CI 0.735-0.948], p < 0.05 to rest, optimum: 3 flights), not significantly different between MET-REPAIR Questionnaire and DASI (0.666 [95%CI 0.551-0.781], optimum: 6 METs vs. 0.704 [95%CI 0.578-0.829], optimum: 32.2 points or 6.7 METs, p = 0.405), and not significant for NT-proBNP: (0.623 [95%CI 0.483-0.763]).

CONCLUSIONS

The MET-REPAIR Questionnaire correlates with measured METs; all utilized forms of self-reported physical activity overestimate measured METs. NT-proBNP correlates poorly with measured METs.

Preoperative optimization of patients undergoing interventional procedures: infrastructure, logistics, and evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients presenting for non-operating room procedures are often 'too sick' for surgery and require specific anesthesia care in remote areas with logistical and scheduling challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased complexity and scope of minimally invasive procedures have expanded this practice. In addition, the concept of therapeutic options other than conventional surgery is gaining traction.

SUMMARY

Our review of recent literature confirms the complexity and supports the safety of providing care in non-operating room anesthesia locations. Standard preanesthesia assessments and principles apply to these areas.

"Fit for Surgery? What's New in Preoperative Assessment of the High-Risk Patient Undergoing Pulmonary Resection"

Advances in perioperative assessment and diagnostics, together with developments in anesthetic and surgical techniques, have considerably expanded the pool of patients who may be suitable for pulmonary resection. Thoracic surgical patients frequently are perceived to be at high perioperative risk due to advanced age, level of comorbidity, and the risks associated with pulmonary resection, which predispose them to a significantly increased risk of perioperative complications, increased healthcare resource use, and costs. The definition of what is considered "fit for surgery" in thoracic surgery continually is being challenged. However, no internationally standardized definition of prohibitive risk exists. Perioperative assessment traditionally concentrates on the "three-legged stool" of pulmonary mechanical function, parenchymal function, and cardiopulmonary reserve. However, no single criterion should exclude a patient from surgery, and there are other perioperative factors in addition to the tripartite assessment that need to be considered in order to more accurately assess functional capacity and predict individual perioperative risk. In this review, the authors aim to address some of the more erudite concepts that are important in preoperative risk assessment of the patient at potentially prohibitive risk undergoing pulmonary resection for malignancy.