2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiac Evaluation Are Usually Incorrectly Applied by Anesthesiology Residents Evaluating Simulated Patients

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Anesthesia and analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.42). 03/2011; 112(4):940-9. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820a1457
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiac Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery is the accepted standard for perioperative cardiac evaluation. Anesthesiology training programs are required to teach these algorithms. We estimated the percentage of residents nationwide who correctly applied suggested testing algorithms from the ACC/AHA guidelines when they evaluated simulated patients in common clinical scenarios.
Anesthesiology resident volunteers at 24 training programs were presented with 6 scenarios characterized by surgical procedure, patient's risk factors, and patient's functional capacity. Scenarios and 5 possible recommendations per scenario were both presented in randomized orders. Senior anesthesiologists at 24 different United States training programs along with the first author of the 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines validated the appropriate recommendation to this web-based survey before distribution.
The 548 resident participants, representing 12% of anesthesiology trainees in the United States, included 48 PGY-1s (preliminary year before anesthesia training), 166 Clinical Anesthesia Year 1 (CA-1) residents, 161 CA-2s, and 173 CA-3s. For patients with an active cardiac condition, the upper 95% confidence bound for the percent of residents who recommended evaluations consistent with the guidelines was 78%. However, for the remaining 5 scenarios, the upper 95% confidence bound for the percent of residents with an appropriate recommendation was 46%.
The results show that fewer than half of anesthesiology residents nationwide correctly demonstrate the approach considered the standard of care for preoperative cardiac evaluation. Further study is necessary to elucidate the correct intervention(s), such as use of decision support tools, increased clarity of guidelines for routine use, adjustment in educational programs, and/or greater familiarity of responsible faculty with the material.

1 Follower
  • European Heart Journal 01/2015; 36(13). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu527 · 14.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 2007 American College of Cardiologists/American Heart Association Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiac Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery is the standard for perioperative cardiac evaluation. Recent work has shown that residents and anesthesiologists do not apply these guidelines when tested. This research hypothesized that a decision support tool would improve adherence to this consensus guideline. Anesthesiology residents at four training programs participated in an unblended, prospective, randomized, cross-over trial in which they completed two tests covering clinical scenarios. One quiz was completed from memory and one with the aid of an electronic decision support tool. Performance was evaluated by overall score (% correct), number of incorrect answers with possibly increased cost or risk of care, and the amount of time required to complete the quizzes both with and without the cognitive aid. The primary outcome was the proportion of correct responses attributable to the use of the decision support tool. All anesthesiology residents at four institutions were recruited and 111 residents participated. Use of the decision support tool resulted in a 25% improvement in adherence to guidelines compared with memory alone (P < 0.0001), and participants made 77% fewer incorrect responses that would have resulted in increased costs. Use of the tool was associated with a 3.4-min increase in time to complete the test (P < 0.001). Use of an electronic decision support tool significantly improved adherence to the guidelines as compared with memory alone. The decision support tool also prevented inappropriate management steps possibly associated with increased healthcare costs.
    Anesthesiology 04/2014; 59(1). DOI:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000251 · 6.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Doppler assessment of diastolic dysfunction (DD) is not part of a standard comprehensive intraoperative echocardiographic examination. Although the reasons may be many, the lack of a simplified algorithm for the assessment of DD specific to the perioperative arena, the implications of this diagnosis on clinical care, and the absence of therapeutic options are some of the commonly cited reasons. In this article, the authors address these possible reasons for the lack of routine application of Doppler indices to assess perioperative DD. The authors have chosen to highlight some of the most common conceptual questions, which often have been raised by anesthesiologists, and attempted to suggest answers. Drawing from their experience and data, the authors propose a simplified algorithm for the application of Doppler to assess and diagnose DD with an individualized and a mechanistic approach. The proposed algorithm is from within the premise of the published guidelines and attempts to simplify the perioperative approach. The authors hope this approach will be simple enough for routine application to affect therapy and a tangible change in outcome. The authors suggest that knowledge of left atrial size is valuable as a marker for persistently increased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and its possible role in risk stratification.
    Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 12/2012; 26(6):1115-23. DOI:10.1053/j.jvca.2012.07.012 · 1.48 Impact Factor