In a 1998 survey of New York metropolitan area anesthesiologists, surgeons, and cardiologists, the three specialties were in general agreement that important purposes of a cardiology consultation are to treat an inadequately treated cardiac condition before surgery (e.g., unstable angina or congestive heart failure [CHF]), to provide data to use in anesthesia management (e.g., ischemic threshold of tachycardia on stress test or left ventricular ejection fraction), and possibly to diagnose a medical condition before surgery (e.g., the cause of a new-onset atrial fibrillation). The yield of a cardiology consultation, in terms of new therapy or significant effect on patient management strategy prior to surgery, has, however, been reported to vary widely from 10% to more than 70%. The reasons why the consultation process often falls short of ideal are probably multifold, but may often originate from vague understanding of the consultation process. The physician initiating the consultation, whether an anesthesiologist or a surgeon, may not make it clear to the cardiologist why the consultation is being sought. In a retrospective review of 202 cardiology consultations at a university hospital, it was found that 108 just asked for an “evaluation,” 79 asked for a “clearance,” and 9 did not specifically request anything. Only six posed a specific question. As a result, the consultant often makes broadly inclusive, general remarks about perioperative management of the patient and may recommend preoperative diagnostic work-up that does not influence the patient’s outcome but prolongs the hospital stay. In this review are presented (1) the indications for cardiology consultations as implied in the American College of Cardiology–American Heart Association (ACC–AHA) guidelines on preoperative cardiac evaluation, and (2) suggestions on how the ACC–AHA guidelines may be critically applied to, and improve, the consultation process. Preoperative Cardiac Consultation Based on the ACC–AHA Guidelines The ACC–AHA guidelines on preoperative cardiac evaluation were published initially in 1996 and were also endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and the Society for Vascular Surgery. An updated version of the guidelines was published in 2002. The guidelines were based on the then-available literature as well as expert opinions from the disciplines of anesthesiology, cardiology, electrophysiology, vascular medicine, vascular surgery, and noninvasive cardiac testing. The guidelines provided an 8-step algorithm for stratifying the patient’s risks and triaging to either surgery or cardiac evaluation. The first three steps of the guidelines consider the urgency of the operation and the recency of cardiac evaluation and intervention. If the operation is not emergent and if there has not been recent cardiac evaluation and/or intervention with no significant interim changes, then the remainder of the guidelines are applied. Steps 4 through 7 deal with an assessment of the patient’s clinical predictors of cardiac risk, functional status, and the risk of the surgery proposed. Step 8, or noninvasive cardiac testing to further define the patient’s risk, is indicated (1) if the patient has a major clinical predictor, (2) if the patient has an intermediate clinical predictor and either has poor functional status or is undergoing a high-risk surgery, or (3) if the patient has poor functional status and is undergoing a high-risk surgery. As defined by the ACC–AHA, major clinical predictors are unstable coronary syndrome, decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF), significant arrhythmias, and severe valvular disease. Intermediate clinical predictors are mild angina pectoris, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHF, diabetes mellitus, and chronic renal failure with serum creatinine greater than 2 mg/dl. A high-risk surgery carries a greater than 5% perioperative risk of cardiac events such as MI, CHF, or death and is exemplified by emergent major operations, especially in the elderly, aortic, and other major vascular procedures, peripheral vascular bypass procedures, and anticipated prolonged surgical procedures associated with large fluid shifts and/or blood loss. An intermediate-risk surgery carries 1–5% perioperative risk of cardiac events and is exemplified by carotid endarterectomy, intraperitoneal and Director of Vascular Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesia & Critical Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Associate Professor of Anaesthesia, Harvard Medical School.
Read full abstract
May 11, 2009
Jonathan Watt + 1
Open Access