Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Schiff, R.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

LETTER

Perioperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Management

right arrow Robert Schiff, MD

15 April 1998 | Volume 128 Issue 8 | Page 693


TO THE EDITOR:

The guidelines for the assessment and management of perioperative risk from coronary artery disease in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery include a comprehensive review and management recommendations [1, 2]. In their management strategy (Appendix Figure 1), the authors rely heavily on the modified cardiac risk index developed by Detsky and colleagues [3]. I have several concerns about the bedside use of this modified index. One issue is whether the patients in Detsky and coworkers' 1986 study [3] are representative of all patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. I do not think they are representative because the authors "enrolled only those patients seen by our consultation service for whom a question of cardiac risk arose during the work-up of the referring surgical service or during our consultation" [3]. Thus, the study patients were referred patients, not consecutive unselected patients.

Detsky and colleagues' study recognized differences in the performance of clinical prediction rules in different settings and institutions [3]. The authors of that study recommend that "institutions record their experience with the indexes in order to calculate local likelihood ratios ... ." It would be interesting but cumbersome to calculate and periodically update these ratios.

A clinical prediction rule should be validated by prospective testing in another group of patients, preferably with different clinicians [4]. I do not believe that the modified cardiac risk index has been prospectively validated. The modified index was most useful for predicting risk in high-risk patients (class III; likelihood ratio, 10.6) [2, 3]. However, many of the postoperative cardiac complications occurred in patients who were in class I or II [3].

The modified cardiac risk index and Goldman and colleagues' original cardiac risk index [5] are helpful as teaching tools for attending physicians and residents and provide a framework for the preoperative evaluation of cardiac risk. I have cited some of the limitations of the modified cardiac risk index as a bedside tool for evaluating perioperative cardiac risk.


Author and Article Information
space
up arrowTop
dotAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine; Maywood, IL 60153


References
space
up arrowTop
up arrowAuthor & Article Info
dotReferences

1. American College of Physicians. Guidelines for assessing and managing the perioperative risk from coronary artery disease associated with major noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:309-12.

2. Palda VA, Detsky AS. Perioperative assessment and management of risk from coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:313-28.

3. Detsky AS, Abrams HB, McLaughlin JR, Drucker DJ, Sasson Z, Johnston N, et al. Predicting cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. J Gen Intern Med. 1986; 1:211-9.

4. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997; 277:488-94.

5. Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR, Southwick FS, Krogstad D, Murray B, et al. Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med: 1977; 297:845-50.

About Letters
space

The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:

•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references

•Type with double-spacing

•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.

Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.

Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.





box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Schiff, R.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space


 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online