(Circulation. 1997;95:2473.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Cardiac Risk Stratification for High-Risk Vascular Surgery
From the Department of Vascular Surgery and Department of Cardiology (V.H.), Krankenhaus Porz am Rhein, Teaching Hospital, University of Cologne, Germany.
Correspondence to C. Bartels, MD, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany.
Abstract
Background The best strategy for cardiac risk assessment before high-risk vascular surgery remains controversial. A cardiac risk stratification protocol was evaluated in patients undergoing high-risk vascular surgery. Our investigation paralleled the elaboration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery and is highly comparable to the proposed guidelines.
Methods and Results A cardiac risk stratification protocol was evaluated prospectively in 203 patients scheduled for aortic surgery. Key points of the study were cardiac mortality/morbidity and cost-effectiveness. Patients were stratified into low (n=101), intermediate (n=79), and high (n=23) cardiac risk after clinical predictors. After stratification, the degree of estimated functional capacity assessed by treadmill exercise and daily living activities and expressed by metabolic equivalents (METs) was critical for further cardiac evaluation. In intermediate-risk patients with an estimated functional capacity <5 METs and in all high-risk patients, noninvasive cardiac testing and/or subsequent medical care were performed. Noninvasive testing was considered necessary in 41 patients, coronary angiography in 7, and myocardial revascularization in 1. Overall hospital mortality was 3.5%. Cardiac mortality and morbidity were 1% and 12.4%, respectively.
Conclusions Cardiac risk stratification for high-risk vascular surgery patients, according to a protocol similar to the ACC/AHA Guidelines for Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery, demonstrated excellent clinical outcome. This approach appears to be a safe and economical strategy for preoperative cardiac evaluation.
Key Words: aorta • surgery • risk factors
Coronary artery disease is commonly associated with vascular disease and is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality after vascular surgery.1 Routine clinical evaluation seems to be neither sufficiently sensitive nor specific enough for cardiac risk estimation, especially in a patient group frequently unable to exercise because of lower-extremity claudication.2 3 4 Various cardiac evaluation procedures have therefore been recommended, including preoperative coronary angiography and prophylactic myocardial revascularization procedures.5 6 Although this approach resulted in a low frequency of cardiac complications, mortality is augmented by the risks of invasive diagnostic procedures and coronary artery surgery itself.7 Also, medical expense increases significantly when such combined procedures are used. Higher costs may be justified if specialized cardiac testing and further treatment improve patients’ clinical outcome. However, it remains to be determined which, if any, of the subgroups of patients scheduled for aortic surgery require such an approach. Therefore, the optimal procedure for cardiac risk assessment and further treatment remains uncertain.
The ACC/AHA Guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery were recently published.6 Parallel to the development of these guidelines, we prospectively evaluated a preoperative cardiac risk assessment protocol similar to the ACC/AHA guidelines for patients undergoing high-risk vascular surgery.
Methods
Between June 1994 and August 1995, 201 patients underwent major aortic reconstruction (159 men, 42 women; mean age, 64±8 years). Operations had been cancelled in two patients because of untreatable CHF or disabling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The indication for surgery was abdominal aortic aneurysm in 109 patients and aortoiliac occlusive disease in 94.
First, functional capacity was assessed by a detailed history using an
activity questionnaire scale.8 Patients were stratified
into low, intermediate, and high cardiac risk according to clinical
predictors (Table 1
).
|
In a second step, all patients had ergometric measurements on a treadmill. Because the treadmill exercise protocol was designed primarily to assess the walking distance, speed and grades of the treadmill were kept constant (2 km/h=1.24 miles/h, 5% grades). Patients who did not suffer from claudication had to fulfill at least 5 METs.
The algorithm used for cardiac stratification is depicted in the
Figure. Before surgery, no further cardiac evaluation
was performed in low-risk patients and intermediate-risk patients able
to exercise at a functional capacity level of 
5 METs. If treadmill
exercise revealed a functional capacity of <5 METs, cardiac workup was
initiated in intermediate-risk patients. Noninvasive testing included
exercise ECG and stress 201Tl scintigraphy.
Patients considered to be at high cardiac risk underwent further
cardiac evaluation and/or subsequent medical care. In high-risk
patients with inadequate medical treatment of CHF or significant
arrhythmias, medical treatment was intensified. If clinical
improvement could be achieved, patients proceeded to the operation
without further testing.
|
On postoperative days 1, 3, and 7, cardiac isoenzymes were measured, and a 12-lead ECG was recorded. All measurements were repeated whenever necessary, at the discretion of the treating physician. Adverse cardiac outcome included (1) cardiac death, (2) myocardial infarction, (3) acute CHF, (4) unstable angina, and (5) new arrhythmias requiring treatment. Major morbidity was defined if any of events 1 through 3 occurred.
Data were analyzed with SPSS for Windows. Categorical
variables were analyzed by means of two-tailed
2 test or Fisher’s exact test, where
appropriate. Multiple logistic regression analysis was
performed with total or major cardiac morbidity as the dependent
variable and the clinical risk factors as predictive variables.
A value of P<.05 was considered significant. Continuous
values are expressed as mean±SD.
Results
Prevalence of estimated cardiac risk and further management are
depicted in the Figure
. Forty-one patients underwent noninvasive
testing. Seven coronary angiographies and one myocardial
revascularization were performed. In 13 high- and
23 intermediate-risk patients, subsequent medical care improved CHF,
arrhythmias, or arterial hypertension.
Total mortality rate was 3.5% (7/201). Two patients (1%) of the intermediate-risk group died of cardiac causes. No cardiac death occurred in the other subgroups. Noncardiac mortality (n=5) was due to multiorgan failure, stroke, sepsis, and surgery-related problems.
Cardiac morbidity (12.4%) is indicated in Table 2. There was no significant difference between groups
for overall cardiac morbidity or major cardiac morbidity (5%, 10%,
and 10% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, respectively).
Univariate analysis revealed a diagnosis of
coronary artery disease (P<.05) and episodes of
intraoperative hypotension (P<.01) as significantly
associated with cardiac morbidity. There was no overall significance
for the models derived from multiple logistic regression
analysis (P=.17 and P=.08,
respectively).
|
Discussion
Patients undergoing major vascular surgery often present a special challenge for cardiologists, vascular surgeons, and anesthesiologists. The physical impairment imposed by claudication may mask the clinical manifestation of coronary artery disease in these patients. The limitations of cardiac risk scores have resulted in an excessive use of preoperative testing and further treatment in the 1990s. The various cardiac testing procedures have strengths and limitations that were recently discussed extensively.6 Preoperative myocardial revascularization seems to be effective in lowering perioperative cardiac morbidity.5 However, no randomized or controlled trial has assessed the overall benefit of prophylactic myocardial revascularization to lower perioperative risk in patients undergoing major aortic surgery. The potential financial expenditures expected from an increased number of vascular surgery procedures in older high-risk patients has recently been outlined.6 9 The main problem is to determine the perioperative risk in these patients while avoiding unnecessary, expensive, and potentially dangerous cardiac evaluation. No test should be performed unless it is likely to influence patient treatment.6
The algorithm studied is based on the assumption that defining clinical
predictors and estimating the functional capacity of the patient will
correctly identify patients in whom further cardiac evaluation may be
profitable. The clinical predictors used were comparable to the ACC/AHA
guidelines. Because patients with azotemia (unpublished data) seem to
be at higher risk of perioperative events, azotemia was
classified as an intermediate clinical predictor. Functional status
appears to be an important predictor of major complications in patients
undergoing high-risk vascular surgery. Functional status can be
estimated from various activity scores or from treadmill exercise
protocols.8 10 Patients with a MET level <5 appear to be
at increased perioperative risk.10 11
However, patients with moderate or excellent functional status are at
low risk when undergoing high-risk vascular surgery.10 In
the reported protocol, functional capacity was assessed by estimation
of METs from a daily living activity questionnaire and/or treadmill
exercise protocol. In contrast to the ACC/AHA guidelines, our algorithm
did not warrant further noninvasive testing if a patient with
intermediate clinical predictors reached a functional capacity of 5
METs. The two cardiac deaths in the patient collective studied occurred
in this subgroup. Whether these two deaths could have been avoided by
preoperative noninvasive evaluation of intermediate-risk patients with
good functional capacity remains uncertain. However, these results
support the proposed stratification of patients with intermediate
clinical predictors scheduled for high-risk vascular surgery as
indicated in the ACC/AHA consensus document.
In patients considered to be at low cardiac risk, no further cardiac evaluation was performed whether these patients reached a functional capacity of 5 METs or not. This is in contrast to the ACC/AHA guidelines. However, no cardiac death and low cardiac morbidity occurred in this subgroup. This approach is supported by Paul et al,12 who were able to exclude the presence of severe or critical coronary artery disease by the absence of clinical markers. They conclude that low-risk patients can be easily identified and may proceed to surgery without further testing. Further studies with a larger patient collective are warranted to decide whether noninvasive testing is appropriate in patients considered to be at low cardiac risk and with limited functional capacity.
Our results indicate that low cardiac mortality and morbidity for patients undergoing high-risk vascular surgery can be achieved by selected use of cardiac testing, amelioration of medical therapy, and invasive treatment according to an algorithm comparable to the ACC/AHA guidelines.
Limitations of the Study
After patients were discharged from the surgical intensive care
unit, routine monitoring of possible ischemic cardiac events in
the patient group studied was performed only by measurement of cardiac
isoenzymes and detected by 12-lead ECG. The incidence of myocardial
ischemia could have been underestimated in our study. Since no
control group exists, statistical data have to be interpreted
cautiously.
Our study did not evaluate the long-term outcome of the patients. Because long-term survival in vascular patients is determined primarily by cardiac events,13 cardiac evaluation and subsequent treatment may be necessary after vascular surgery. In our opinion, this consideration should be kept in mind if cost-effectiveness is discussed for preoperative cardiac evaluation for patients undergoing vascular surgery.
Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms
|
Received February 17, 1997; revision received April 1, 1997; accepted April 2, 1997.
References
1. Johnston KW. Multicenter prospective study of nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, II: variables predicting morbidity and mortality. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:437-447.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Jeffrey CC, Kunsman J, Cullen DJ, Brewster DC. A prospective evaluation of cardiac risk index. Anesthesiology. 1983;58:462-464.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Kalra M, Charlesworth D, Morris JA, Al-Khaffaf H. Myocardial infarction after reconstruction of the abdominal aorta. Br J Surg. 1993;80:28-31.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Mangano DT, Goldman L. Preoperative assessment
of patients with known or suspected coronary disease.
N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1750-1756.
5. Hertzer NR, Young JR, Kramer JR, Phillips DF, de Wolfe
VG, Ruschhaupt WF III, Beven EG. Routine coronary
angiography prior to elective aortic reconstruction: results of
selective myocardial revascularization in patients
with peripheral vascular disease. Arch
Surg. 1979;114:1336-1344.
6. ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. ACC/AHA guidelines for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1996;93:1280-1317.
7. Blombery PA, Ferguson IA, Rosengarten DS, Stuchbery KE, Miles CR, Black AJ, Pitt A, Anderson ST, Harper RW, Federman J. The role of coronary artery disease in complications of abdominal aortic surgery. Surgery. 1987;101:150-155.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Hlatky MA, Boineau RE, Higginbotham MB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Califf RM, Cobb FR, Pryor DB. A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (the Duke Activity Status Index). Am J Cardiol. 1989;64:651-654.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Mangano DT. Preoperative assessment of the patient with cardiac disease. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1995;10:530-542.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Fletcher GF, Balady G, Froelicher VF, Hartley LH,
Haskell WL, Pollock PL. Exercise standards: a statement for
healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association.
Circulation. 1995;91:580-615.
11. Ellestad MH, Wan MKC. Predictive implications of
stress testing: follow-up of 2700 subjects after maximum treadmill
stress testing. Circulation. 1975;51:363-369.
12. Paul SD, Eagle KA, Kuntz KM, Young JR, Hertzer
NR. Concordance of preoperative clinical risk with angiographic
severity of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing
vascular surgery. Circulation. 1996;94:1561-1566.
13. Roger VL, Ballard DJ, Hallett JW Jr, Osmundson PJ, Puetz PA, Gersh BJ. Influence of coronary artery disease on morbidity and mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy: a population-based study, 1971-1987. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;14:1245-1252.[Abstract]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association Task Force on Practice, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interve, Society for Vascular Medicine, Society for Vascular Surgery, L. A. Fleisher, et al. 2009 ACCF/AHA Focused Update on Perioperative Beta Blockade Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 24, 2009; 54(22): e13 - e118. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 2007 WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, L. A. Fleisher, J. A. Beckman, K. A. Brown, H. Calkins, E. L. Chaikof, K. E. Fleischmann, W. K. Freeman, J. B. Froehlich, E. K. Kasper, et al. 2009 ACCF/AHA Focused Update on Perioperative Beta Blockade Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Circulation, November 24, 2009; 120(21): e169 - e276. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Laitio, J. Jalonen, T. Kuusela, and H. Scheinin The Role of Heart Rate Variability in Risk Stratification for Adverse Postoperative Cardiac Events Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1548 - 1560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V Russo, V Gostoli, L Lovato, M Montalti, A Marzocchi, G Gavelli, A Branzi, R Di Bartolomeo, and R Fattori Clinical value of multidetector CT coronary angiography as a preoperative screening test before non-coronary cardiac surgery Heart, December 1, 2007; 93(12): 1591 - 1598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher, J. A. Beckman, K. A. Brown, H. Calkins, E. L. Chaikof, K. E. Fleischmann, W. K. Freeman, J. B. Froehlich, E. K. Kasper, J. R. Kersten, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 23, 2007; 50(17): e159 - e242. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher, J. A. Beckman, K. A. Brown, H. Calkins, E. L. Chaikof, K. E. Fleischmann, W. K. Freeman, J. B. Froehlich, E. K. Kasper, J. R. Kersten, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Circulation, October 23, 2007; 116(17): e418 - e500. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. McCullough, M. J. Gallagher, A. T. deJong, K. R. Sandberg, J. E. Trivax, D. Alexander, G. Kasturi, S. M. A. Jafri, K. R. Krause, D. L. Chengelis, et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Short-term Complications After Bariatric Surgery. Chest, August 1, 2006; 130(2): 517 - 525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Filipovic, R. Jeger, C. Probst, T. Girard, M. Pfisterer, L. Gurke, K. Skarvan, and M. D. Seeberger Heart rate variability and cardiac troponin I are incremental and independent predictors of one-year all-cause mortality after major noncardiac surgery in patients at risk of coronary artery disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 19, 2003; 42(10): 1767 - 1776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Back, D. C. Schmacht, A. N. Bowser, N. Stordahl, D. Cuthbertson, B. L. Johnson, and D. F. Bandyk Critical Appraisal of Cardiac Risk Stratification Before Elective Vascular Surgery Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, November 1, 2003; 37(6): 387 - 397. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Hashimoto, T. Suzuki, T. Nakahara, S. Kosuda, and A. Kubo Preoperative Risk Stratification Using Stress Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy with Electrocardiographic Gating J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2003; 44(3): 385 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Licker, G. Khatchatourian, A. Schweizer, M. Bednarkiewicz, D. Tassaux, and C. Chevalley The Impact of a Cardioprotective Protocol on the Incidence of Cardiac Complications After Aortic Abdominal Surgery Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2002; 95(6): 1525 - 1533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P.-G. Chassot, A. Delabays, and D. R. Spahn Preoperative evaluation of patients with, or at risk of, coronary artery disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2002; 89(5): 747 - 759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. B. Morgan, G. E. Panomitros, A. C. Nelson, D. F. Smith, D. R. Solanki, and M. H. Zornow Low Utility of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiograms in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients Scheduled for Noncardiac Surgery Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2002; 95(3): 512 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher and K. A. Eagle Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation: What Have We Learned Over the Past 6 Years to Warrant an Update? Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2002; 94(5): 1378 - 1379. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Eagle, P. B. Berger, H. Calkins, B. R. Chaitman, G. A. Ewy, K. E. Fleischmann, L. A. Fleisher, J. B. Froehlich, R. J. Gusberg, J. A. Leppo, et al. ACC/AHA Guideline Update for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery--Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Circulation, March 12, 2002; 105(10): 1257 - 1267. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Eagle, P. B. Berger, H. Calkins, B. R. Chaitman, G. A. Ewy, K. E. Fleischmann, L. A. Fleisher, J. B. Froehlich, R. J. Gusberg, J. A. Leppo, et al. ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery--executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 6, 2002; 39(3): 542 - 553. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Jin and F. Chung Minimizing perioperative adverse events in the elderly{dagger} Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2001; 87(4): 608 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Mathes The Preoperative Evaluation of the Patient With Cardiac Risk Factors for Noncardiac Surgery: Which Patients Need Further Cardiac Risk Stratification Tests? Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, July 1, 2001; 5(2): 154 - 165. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mantha Rational Cardiac Risk Stratification Before Peripheral Vascular Surgery: Application of Evidence-Based Medicine and Bayesian Analysis Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, November 1, 2000; 4(4): 198 - 212. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Fleisher, K. A. Eagle, T. Shaffer, and G. F. Anderson Perioperative- and Long-Term Mortality Rates After Major Vascular Surgery: The Relationship to Preoperative Testing in the Medicare Population Anesth. Analg., October 1, 1999; 89(4): 849 - 849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Lee, E. R. Marcantonio, C. M. Mangione, E. J. Thomas, C. A. Polanczyk, E. F. Cook, D. J. Sugarbaker, M. C. Donaldson, R. Poss, K. K. L. Ho, et al. Derivation and Prospective Validation of a Simple Index for Prediction of Cardiac Risk of Major Noncardiac Surgery Circulation, September 7, 1999; 100(10): 1043 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. C. Kloehn and R. A. O'Rourke Perioperative Risk Stratification in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Kloehn, GC and O'Rourke, RA Perioperative Risk Stratification in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery J Intensive Care Med 1999,14 95-108 J Intensive Care Med, March 1, 1999; 14(2): 95 - 108. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||