Combining clinical and thallium data optimizes preoperative assessment of cardiac risk before major vascular surgery.
ABSTRACT To determine whether clinical markers and preoperative dipyridamole-thallium imaging are both useful in predicting ischemic events after vascular surgery.
Retrospective, observational study.
University medical center.
Two hundred fifty-four consecutive patients referred to a nuclear cardiology laboratory before surgery. Forty-four patients had surgery cancelled or postponed after clinical evaluation and dipyridamole-thallium imaging. Surgery was not confirmed for ten. Two hundred patients receiving prompt vascular surgery were the study group.
Thirty patients (15%) had early postoperative cardiac ischemic events, with cardiac death in 6 (3%) and nonfatal myocardial infarction in 9 (4.5%). Logistic regression identified five clinical predictors (Q waves, history of ventricular ectopic activity, diabetes, advanced age, angina) and two dipyridamole-thallium predictors of postoperative events. Of patients with none of the clinical variables (n = 64), only 2 (3.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 8%) had ischemic events with no cardiac deaths. Ten of twenty (50%; 95% CI, 29% to 71%) patients with three or more clinical markers had events. Eighteen of one hundred sixteen (15.5%; 95% CI, 7% to 21%) patients with either 1 or 2 clinical predictors had events. Within this group, 2 of 62 (3.2%; 95% CI, 0% to 8%) patients without thallium redistribution had events compared with 16 events in 54 patients (29.6%; 95% CI, 16% to 44%) with thallium redistribution. The multivariate model using both clinical and thallium variables showed significantly higher specificity at equivalent sensitivity levels than models using either clinical or thallium variables alone.
Preoperative dipyridamole-thallium imaging appears most useful to stratify vascular patients determined to be at intermediate risk by clinical evaluation. For patients with one or two clinical predictors, thallium redistribution correlates with substantial change in probability of events. For nearly half the patients, however, thallium imaging may have been unnecessary because of very high or low cardiac risk predicted by clinical information alone.
SourceAvailable from: Caitlin W Hicks[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Previous reports have documented better outcomes after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in tertiary centers compared with lower-volume hospitals, but outcome variability for endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) vs open AAA repairs in a large tertiary center using a Medicare-derived mortality risk prediction model has not been previously reported. In the current study, we compared the observed vs predicted mortality after EVAR and open AAA repair in a single large tertiary vascular center.Journal of Vascular Surgery 08/2014; 61(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.078 · 2.98 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The increasing number of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing major noncardiac surgery justifies guidelines concerning preoperative cardiac evaluation. This is compounded by increasing chances for a volatile perioperative period if the underlying cardiac problems are left uncorrected prior to major noncardiac surgeries. Preoperative cardiac evaluation requires the clinician to assess the patient's probability to have CAD, severity and stability of CAD, placing these in perspective regarding the likelihood of a perioperative cardiac complication based on the planned surgical procedure. Coronary events like new onset ischemia, infarction, or revascularization, induce a high-risk period of 6 weeks, and an intermediate-risk period of 3 months before performing noncardiac surgery. This delay is unwarranted in cases where surgery is the mainstay of treatment. The objective of this review is to offer a comprehensive algorithm in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and highlight the importance of myocardial perfusion imaging in risk stratifying these patients.03/2014; 13(1). DOI:10.4103/1450-1147.138568
Annals of internal medicine 01/2010; 152(1):47. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-152-1-201001050-00184 · 16.10 Impact Factor