Pathological findings associated with the updated European Society of Cardiology 2022 guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing: an observational cohort modelling study

Accuracy of preoperative lung ultrasound score for the prediction of major adverse cardiac events in elderly patients undergoing HIP surgery under spinal anesthesia: The LUSHIP multicenter observational prospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that lung ultrasound scores (LUS) can help stratify the cardiac risk of elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery for hip fracture, adding value to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Myocardial infarction and Cardiac arrest (NSQIP-MICA).

METHODS

Prospective, observational multicenter study of 11 Italian hospitals on patients aged >65 years with hip fractures needing urgent surgery. Subjects with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the previous 6 months or with ongoing acute heart failure were excluded. Trained anesthesiologists obtained preoperative LUS scores during preoperative evaluation. ROC curve analysis and comparison were used to evaluate test accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 877 patients were enrolled in the study period. 108 MACE events occurred in 98 patients, with an overall incidence of 11.2%. LUS score was higher in complicated than non-complicated patients, 11.6 ± 6.64 vs. 4.97 ± 4.90 (p < 0.001). Preoperative LUS score ≥8 showed both better AUC (0.78) and accuracy (0.76) in predicting MACE than the RCRI scores (p < 0.001), MICA scores (p = 0.001) and ASA classes (p < 0.001). LUS sensitivity was 0.71, specificity was 0.76, negative predictive value was 0.95. LUS score ≥8 showed an OR for MACE of 5.81[95% CI 3.55-9.69] at multivariate analysis. 91 patients (10.4%) experienced postoperative pneumonia showing a preoperative LUS score higher in the non-pneumonia group, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative LUS score, with its high negative predictive value, could improve patients' risk stratification when used alone or add further value to the RCRI score.

REGISTRATION

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04074876.

The need for rigour in consensus statements and guidelines

Clinical guidelines and consensus statements are an essential aid to clinical practice. However, they bring with them risks. Amongst these are the exclusion of key stakeholders, the creation of mutual self-citation networks, and a lack of rigour in implementing and documenting the consensus process. This editorial explores the challenges of producing robust consensus statements and guidelines that have impact, and identifies current frameworks for addressing these. It is important to conduct clinical consensus exercises using recognised and accepted methodologies.

Implementation of a software-based decision support tool for guideline-appropriate preoperative evaluation: a prospective agreement study

BACKGROUND

Guideline adherence in the medical field leaves room for improvement. Digitalised decision support helps improve compliance. However, the complex nature of the guidelines makes implementation in clinical practice difficult.

METHODS

This single-centre prospective study included 204 adult ASA physical status 3-4 patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at a German university hospital. Agreement of clearance for surgery between a guideline expert and a digital guideline support tool was investigated. The decision made by the on-duty anaesthetists (standard approach) was assessed for agreement with the expert in a cross-over design. The main outcome was the level of agreement between digital guideline support and the expert.

RESULTS

The digital guideline support approach cleared 18.1% of the patients for surgery, the standard approach cleared 74.0%, and the expert approach cleared 47.5%. Agreement of the expert decision with digital guideline support (66.7%) and the standard approach (67.6%) was fair (Cohen's kappa 0.37 [interquartile range 0.26-0.48] vs 0.31 [0.21-0.42], P=0.6). Taking the expert decision as a benchmark, correct clearance using digital guideline support was 50.5%, and correct clearance using the standard approach was 44.6%. Digital guideline support incorrectly asked for additional examinations in 31.4% of the patients, whereas the standard approach did not consider conditions that would have justified additional examinations before surgery in 29.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict guideline adherence for clearance for surgery through digitalised decision support inadequately considered patients, clinical context. Vague formulations, weak recommendations, and low-quality evidence complicate guideline translation into explicit rules.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04058769.

Factors affecting adherence to recommendations on pre-operative cardiac testing: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac risk evaluation prior to noncardiac surgery is fundamental to tailor peri-operative management to patient's estimated risk. Data on the degree of adherence to guidelines in patients at cardiovascular risk in Europe and factors influencing adherence are underexplored.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to describe the degree of adherence to [2014 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines] recommendations on rest echocardiography [transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)] and to stress imaging prior to noncardiac surgery in a large European sample and to assess factors potentially affecting adherence.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study (MET-REPAIR).

SETTING

Twenty-five European centres of all levels of care that enrolled patients between 2017 and 2020.

PATIENTS

With elevated cardiovascular risk undergoing in-hospital elective, noncardiac surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(Non)adherence to each pre-operative TTE and stress imaging recommendations classified as guideline-adherent, overuse and underuse. We performed descriptive analysis. To explore the impact of patients' sex, age, geographical region, and hospital teaching status, we conducted multivariate multinominal regression analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 15 983 patients, 15 529 were analysed (61% men, mean age 72 ± 8 years). Overuse (conduction in spite of class III) and underuse (nonconduction in spite of class I recommendation) for pre-operative TTE amounted to 16.6% (2542/15 344) and 6.6% (1015/15 344), respectively. Stress imaging overuse and underuse amounted to 1.7% (241/14 202) and 0.4% (52/14 202) respectively. Male sex, some age categories and some geographical regions were significantly associated with TTE overuse. Male sex and some regions were also associated with TTE underuse. Age and regions were associated with overuse of stress imaging. Male sex, age, and some regions were associated with stress imaging underuse.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to pre-operative stress imaging recommendation was high. In contrast, adherence to TTE recommendations was moderate. Both patients' and geographical factors affected adherence to joint ESC/ESA guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03016936.

Association between self-reported METs and other perioperative cardiorespiratory fitness assessment tools in abdominal surgery-a prospective cross-sectional correlation study

Cardiovascular complications represent a significant proportion of adverse events during the perioperative period, necessitating accurate preoperative risk assessment. This study aimed to investigate the association between well-established risk assessment tools and self-reported preoperative physical performance, quantified by metabolic equivalent (MET) equivalents, in high-risk patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. A prospective cross-sectional correlation study was conducted, involving 184 patients admitted to a Gastrointestinal Surgery Department. Various risk assessment tools, including the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), Surgical Mortality Probability Model (S-MPM), American University of Beirut (AUB)-HAS2 Cardiovascular Risk Index, and Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-MICA), were utilized to evaluate perioperative risk. Patients self-reported their physical performance using the MET-REPAIR questionnaire. The findings demonstrated weak or negligible correlations between the risk assessment tools and self-reported MET equivalents (Spearman's ρ = - 0.1 to - 0.3). However, a statistically significant relationship was observed between the ability to ascend two flights of stairs and the risk assessment scores. Good correlations were identified among ASA-PS, S-MPM, NSQIP-MICA, and AUB-HAS2 scores (Spearman's ρ = 0.3-0.8). Although risk assessment tools exhibited limited correlation with self-reported MET equivalents, simple questions regarding physical fitness, such as the ability to climb stairs, showed better associations. A comprehensive preoperative risk assessment should incorporate both objective and subjective measures to enhance accuracy. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to validate these findings and develop a comprehensive screening tool for high-risk patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.