16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment in a General Medicine Preoperative Clinic: Improving Efficiency and Preserving Outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) publishes recommendations for cardiac assessment of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with the intent of promoting evidence-based, efficient preoperative screening and management. We sought to study the impact of guideline implementation for cardiac risk assessment in a general internal medicine preoperative clinic. Methods: The study was an observational cohort study of consecutive patients being evaluated in an outpatient preoperative evaluation clinic before and after implementation of the ACC/AHA guideline. Data was gathered by retrospective abstraction of hospital and clinic charts using standard definitions. 299 patients were reviewed prior to guideline implementation and their care compared to 339 consecutive patients after the guideline was implemented in the clinic. Results: Guideline implementation led to a reduction in exercise stress testing (30.8% before, 16.2% after; p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (6.5 days before, 5.6 days after; p = 0.055). β-Blocker therapy increased after the intervention (15.7% before; 34.5% after; p < 0.001) and preoperative test appropriateness improved (86% before to 94.1% after; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac risk assessment prior to noncardiac surgery in an internal medicine preoperative assessment clinic led to a more appropriate use of preoperative stress testing and β-blocker therapy while preserving a low rate of cardiac complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Improving Quality of Care for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe Guidelines Applied in Practice (GAP) Initiative

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and validation of a Bayesian model for perioperative cardiac risk assessment in a cohort of 1,081 vascular surgical candidates.

            This study sought to develop and validate a Bayesian risk prediction model for vascular surgery candidates. Patients who require surgical treatment of peripheral vascular disease are at increased risk of perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality. Existing prediction models tend to underestimate risk in vascular surgery candidates. The cohort comprised 1,081 consecutive vascular surgery candidates at five medical centers. Of these, 567 patients from two centers ("training" set) were used to develop the model, and 514 patients from three centers were used to validate it ("validation" set). Risk scores were developed using logistic regression for clinical variables: advanced age (>70 years), angina, history of myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, history of congestive heart failure and prior coronary revascularization. A second model was developed from dipyridamole-thallium predictors of myocardial infarction (i.e., fixed and reversible myocardial defects and ST changes). Model performance was assessed by comparing observed event rates with risk estimates and by performing receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The postoperative cardiac event rate was 8% for both sets. Prognostic accuracy (i.e., ROC area) was 74 +/- 3% (mean +/- SD) for the clinical and 81 +/- 3% for the clinical and dipyridamole-thallium models. Among the validation sets, areas were 74 +/- 9%, 72 +/- 7% and 76 +/- 5% for each center. Observed and estimated rates were comparable for both sets. By the clinical model, the observed rates were 3%, 8% and 18% for patients classified as low, moderate and high risk by clinical factors (p 80% of the moderate risk patients into low (3%) and high (19%) risk categories (p<0.0001) but provided no stratification for patients classified as low or high risk according to the clinical model. Simple clinical markers, weighted according to prognostic impact, will reliably stratify risk in vascular surgery candidates referred for dipyridamole-thallium testing, thus obviating the need for the more expensive testing. Our prediction model retains its prognostic accuracy when applied to the validation sets and can reliably estimate risk in this group.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery

              (1996)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2005
                November 2004
                24 November 2004
                : 103
                : 1
                : 24-29
                Affiliations
                The Michigan Cardiovascular Research and Reporting Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA
                Article
                81848 Cardiology 2005;103:24–29
                10.1159/000081848
                15528897
                f739094b-a9f6-4074-a254-d433daa37d98
                © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 31 March 2004
                : 05 April 2004
                Page count
                Tables: 5, References: 18, Pages: 6
                Categories
                General Cardiology

                General medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Internal medicine,Nephrology
                ACC/AHA guidelines,Health policy,Surgery, noncardiac

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content265

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors245