Paul A. Grayburn, MD; L David Hillis, MD
Grayburn PA, Hillis LD. Cardiac Events in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Shifting the Paradigm from Noninvasive Risk Stratification to Therapy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:506-511. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00017
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(6):506-511.
Internists and cardiologists are often asked to estimate the risk for perioperative myocardial infarction or cardiac death in patients being considered for noncardiac surgery. Estimating this risk in an individual patient is difficult and complex. Although noninvasive imaging tests are often used for this purpose, a review of the literature reveals that the positive predictive value of noninvasive imaging tests is uniformly low and that they do not provide information beyond that obtained by assessing simple clinical risk variables. Moreover, no evidence exists that noninvasive imaging tests lead to a therapeutic strategy that reduces the risk for perioperative myocardial infarction or cardiac death. Since the publication of guidelines for preoperative risk stratification by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association in 1996 and the American College of Physicians in 1997, three clinical trials have shown that -blocker therapy reduces the risk for perioperative cardiac events. This paper focuses on the relationship between risk stratification and subsequent therapy to minimize or eliminate risk. In short, the paradigm is shifting from predicting which patient is at high risk for having a perioperative cardiac event to minimizing the likelihood of such an event with specific perioperative pharmacologic therapy.
Is it accurate? Yes. The receiver-operating characteristic curve area greater than 0.8 indicates that the revised cardiac risk index is accurate in segregating patient risk groups.
Does it add to pretest knowledge? Yes.
Is the harms–benefit tradeoff favorable? Yes. The revised cardiac risk index is derived inexpensively from the history, physical examination, and serum creatinine level.
Is it accurate? No. The positive likelihood ratio is low. The negative likelihood ratio is good in some studies but poor in others. Two large prospective, blinded studies showed that myocardial perfusion imaging did not provide independent prognostic value beyond clinical risk stratification (34, 39).
Does it influence outcome? No published prospective trials have addressed this question.
Is the harms–benefit tradeoff favorable? No. Patients with positive test results often are subjected to further evaluation, such as coronary angiography. Such a strategy is costly and may delay surgery unnecessarily.
Is it accurate? No. The likelihood ratio of a positive test result is poor. The negative likelihood ratio is good in all but one study. A recent large study (43) showed that
DSE did not add incremental value in low- or medium-risk patients (score of 0 to 2 on the revised cardiac risk index).
Does it influence outcome? No studies have addressed this prospectively.
Is the harms–benefit tradeoff favorable? No. Dobutamine stress echocardiography has a low positive predictive value. Patients with positive test results are often subjected to further evaluation, which may cause an unnecessary delay in noncardiac surgery.
DSE = dobutamine stress echocardiography.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2016 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only