Preoperative cardiac evaluation

Risk of and Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospital Patients

Objective:

To review the published clinical data on prophylaxis for thromboembolism in order to develop general guidelines to encourage the establishment of local protocols for management.

Data sources:

Published papers on thromboembolism over the period 1991–1997 were identified by Medline search and/or from the authors' personal literature collections and reviewed.

Study selection:

A total of 981 studies were identified. Only those papers reporting randomized studies with clearly defined diagnostic methods and clear end-points were included in this review.

Data extraction:

The available evidence for each specialty was summarized and reviewed by the authors responsible for each specialty, prior to presentation and discussion of their findings within the group. Where a consensus opinion was achieved in a speciality, general guidelines for thromboprophylaxis were summarized. Where a consensus could not be agreed, recommendations for further work were made.

Data synthesis:

There is evidence to support the preferred use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in orthopaedic surgery, major trauma and general surgery. However, the ideal duration of thromboprophylaxis has yet to be defined. The use of once daily subcutaneous administration of LMWH offers major practical advantages and may have significant cost saving implications. Further work is required to investigate the use of thromboprophylaxis in minimal access surgery, trauma, elective lower limb surgery, hip fracture and pregnancy; to compare the efficacy of LMWH and mechanical prophylaxis; and to investigate extended prophylaxis after discharge.

Conclusions:

There is overwhelming evidence that thromboembolic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Recommendations concerning the management of these patients when stratified into low, moderate and high risk are made with the suggestion that hospitals develop their own guidelines for the treatment of these patients.

Role of history and physical examination in preoperative evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Since reports have shown that outpatient preoperative evaluation increases the quality of care and cost-effectiveness, an increasing number of patients are being evaluated purely on an outpatient basis. To improve cost-effectiveness, it would be appealing if those patients who are healthy and ready for surgery without additional testing could be easily distinguished from those who require more extensive evaluation. This paper examines whether published studies provide sufficient data to determine how detailed preoperative history taking and physical examination need to be in order to assess the health of surgical patients and to meet the objective of easy and early distinction.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted from 1991 to 2000 with respect to preoperative patient history and physical examination. Altogether, 213 articles were found, of which 29 were selected. Additionally, 38 cross-references, 7 articles on additional testing and 4 recently published papers were used.

RESULTS

It is questionable to what extent an extensive history is relevant for anaesthesia and long-term prognosis. With respect to physical examination, it seems unreasonable to diagnose valvular heart disease based on cardiac auscultation only, and it is unclear which method should be used to predict the difficulty of endotracheal intubation. The benefits of routine testing for all surgical patients before operation are extremely limited and are not advocated.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of detail of preoperative patient history and the value of physical examination to obtain a reasonable estimate of perioperative risk remains unclear. Although not evidence based, a thorough history taking and physical examination of all patients before surgery seems important until more evidence-based guidelines become available. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction studies may provide this necessary evidence.

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.

Medical clearance for gynecologic surgery

Physicians are charged to "foremost do no harm." Thus, before doing any surgical procedure, surgeons must convince themselves that the risk to the patient does not outweigh the benefit. The patient with multiple medical problems has additional risk factors for elective surgery. In the past, that patient would be sent to their general practitioner for "medical clearance." With gynecologists now assuming that role for the patient, it is increasingly important for us to understand what comprises medical clearance to better assess hazards. Studies concerning medical clearance for surgery obtained in a MEDLINE search through March 1997 were reviewed; the recent advances that apply to gynecologic surgery are covered in this article.