Incidence, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Preincision Cardiac Arrest in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: We examined the incidence, postoperative outcomes, and patient-related factors associated with preincision cardiac arrest in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively examined adult patients undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between 2008 and 2019. The incidence of preincision cardiac arrest, defined as arrest between induction of general anesthesia and surgical incision, was reported. In a secondary analysis, we assessed the association between preincision cardiac arrest and major postoperative outcomes. In a tertiary analysis, we used adjusted linear regression models to explore the association between preincision cardiac arrest and prespecified patient risk factors, including severe left main coronary artery stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate/severe right ventricular dysfunction, low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis, and moderate/severe pulmonary hypertension. RESULTS: Preincision cardiac arrests occurred in 75 of 41,238 (incidence of 0.18%; 95% CI, 0.17-0.26) patients who had elective or urgent cardiac surgery. Successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation with return of spontaneous circulation or bridge to cardiopulmonary bypass occurred in 74 of 75 (98.6%) patients. Patients who experienced preincision cardiac arrest had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those who did not (11% vs 2%; odds ratio [OR] (95% CI), 4.14 (1.94-8.84); P < .001). They were also more likely to suffer postoperative respiratory failure (46% vs 13%; OR [95% CI], 3.94 [2.40-6.47]; P < .001), requirement for renal replacement therapy (11% vs 2%; OR [95% CI], 3.90 [1.82-8.35]; P < .001), neurologic deficit (7% vs 2%; OR [95% CI], 2.49 (1.00-6.21); P = .05), and longer median hospital stay (15 vs 8 days; hazard ratio (HR) [95% CI], 0.68 [0.55-0.85]; P < .001). Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (per 5% decrease) (OR [95% CI], 1.13 [1.03-1.22]; P = .006) and moderate/severe pulmonary hypertension (OR [95% CI], 3.40 [1.95-5.90]; P < .001) were identified as independent risk factors for cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac arrest after anesthetic induction is rare in cardiac surgical patients in our investigation. Though most patients are rescued, morbidity and mortality remain higher. Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and moderate/severe pulmonary hypertension are associated with greater risk for preincision cardiac arrest.

Addressing Inter-Rater Variability in the ASA-PS Classification System.

INTRODUCTION: The American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status (ASA-PS) Classification System was established to grade a patient's physical status prior to surgery. The literature shows inconsistencies in the application of the ASA-PS classification among providers. The many uses of the ASA-PS class require reliable ASA-PS class designations between providers. While much literature illustrates the inconsistency, there is limited research on how to improve inter-rater agreement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following an educational intervention targeted at medicine providers, a retrospective chart review was completed to determine the long-term impact of an educational intervention on ASA-PS class agreement among providers of different specialties. To assess the overall agreement between the data sets following the intervention, kappa statistics were calculated for the medicine and anesthesia data sets. These values were compared to the kappa statistics from a similar study completed prior to the educational intervention. RESULTS: Overall, the kappa score, or agreement, between medicine and anesthesia providers improved from the range generally accepted to indicate slight agreement to the range indicating moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: While there was improvement in agreement following an education intervention, the agreement seen was not statistically significant. More research needs to be done to determine how to improve inter-rater reliability of the ASA-PS classification system with a focus on non-anesthesia providers.

Scopolamine Toxicity in an Elderly Patient.

We present a case of a 66-year-old female who was to undergo a scheduled operation and placed on our institution's ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol. The intraoperative course was unremarkable. The patient developed delayed emergence in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. On physical exam, the patient was noted to have a transdermal scopolamine patch adjacent to an area of skin breakdown. She also displayed signs of central anti-cholinergic toxicity including mydriasis and tachycardia. Following removal of the scopolamine patch and administration of physostigmine, her mental status returned to baseline. This interesting case highlights the importance of considering patient specific factors such as age when implementing ERAS protocols perioperatively. It also demonstrates the risks associated with scopolamine and the importance of risk/benefit analysis prior to administration.

Clinical agreement in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification is not intended to predict risk, but increasing ASA-PS class has been associated with increased perioperative mortality. The ASA-PS class is being used by many institutions to identify patients that may require further workup or exams preoperatively. Studies regarding the ASA-PS classification system show significant variability in class assignment by anesthesiologists as well as providers of different specialties when provided with short clinical scenarios. Discrepancies in the ASA-PS accuracy have the potential to lead to unnecessary testing and cancelation of surgical procedures. Our study aimed to determine whether these differences in ASA-PS classification were present when actual patients were evaluated rather than previously published scenario-based studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed for patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing elective total hip or total knee replacements. One hundred seventy-seven records were reviewed of which 101 records had the necessary data. The outcome measures noted were the ASA-PS classification assigned by the internal medicine clinic provider, the ASA-PS classification assigned by the Pre-Anesthesia Unit (PAU) clinic provider, and the ASA-PS classification assigned on the day of surgery (DOS) by the anesthesia provider conducting the anesthetic care. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was shown between the internal medicine and the PAU preoperative ASA-PS designation as well as between the internal medicine and DOS designation (McNemar p = 0.034 and p = 0.025). Low kappa values were obtained confirming the inter-observer variation in the application of the ASA-PS classification of patients by providers of different specialties [Kappa of 0.170 (- 0.001, 0.340) and 0.156 (- 0.015, 0.327)]. CONCLUSIONS: There was disagreement in the ASA-PS class designation between two providers of different specialties when evaluating the same patients with access to full medical records. When the anesthesia-run PAU and the anesthesia assigned DOS ASA-PS class designations were evaluated, there was agreement. This agreement was seen between anesthesia providers regardless of education or training level. The difference in the application of the ASA-PS classification in our study appeared to be reflective of department membership and not reflective of the individual provider's level of training.