James B. Froehlich

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)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment. ### A. Development of Guidelines These guidelines are based on an update of a Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Best Evidence search of the English literature from 1995 through 2000, a review of selected journals, and the expert opinions of 12 committee members representing various disciplines of cardiovascular care, including general cardiology, interventional cardiology, noninvasive testing, vascular medicine, vascular surgery, anesthesiology, and arrhythmia management. As a result of these searches, more than 400 relevant new articles were identified. In addition, draft guidelines were submitted for critical review and amendment to the executive officers representing the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). A large proportion of the data used to develop these guidelines are …

ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: Executive summary - 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)

WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Lee A. Fleisher, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Joshua A. Beckman, MD, FACC¶; Kenneth A. Brown, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Hugh Calkins, MD, FACC, FAHA‡; Elliot L. Chaikof, MD#; Kirsten E. Fleischmann, MD, MPH, FACC; William K. Freeman, MD, FACC*; James B. Froehlich, MD, MPH, FACC; Edward K. Kasper, MD, FACC; Judy R. Kersten, MD, FACC§; Barbara Riegel, DNSc, RN, FAHA; John F. Robb, MD, FACC

Long-term survival in patients presenting with type B acute aortic dissection: Insights from the international registry of acute aortic dissection

Background— Follow-up survival studies in patients with acute type B aortic dissection have been restricted to a small number of patients in single centers. We used data from a contemporary registry of acute type B aortic dissection to better understand factors associated with adverse long-term survival. Methods and Results— We examined 242 consecutive patients discharged alive with acute type B aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) between 1996 and 2003. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of follow-up mortality. Three-year survival for patients treated medically, surgically, or with endovascular therapy was 77.6±6.6%, 82.8±18.9%, and 76.2±25.2%, respectively (median follow-up 2.3 years, log-rank P=0.61). Independent predictors of follow-up mortality included female gender (hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 3.71; P=0.03), a history of prior aortic aneurysm (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.59; P=0.04), a history of atherosclerosis (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.32 to 4.66; P<0.01), in-hospital renal failure (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.63; P=0.02), pleural effusion on chest radiograph (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.18 to 5.58; P=0.02), and in-hospital hypotension/shock (HR, 12.5; 95% CI, 3.24 to 48.21; P<0.01). Conclusions— Contemporary follow-up mortality in patients who survive to hospital discharge with acute type B aortic dissection is high, approaching 1 in every 4 patients at 3 years. Current treatment and follow-up surveillance require further study to better understand and optimize care for patients with this complex disease.

Aortic Diameter ≥5.5 cm Is Not a Good Predictor of Type A Aortic Dissection Observations From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)

Background— Studies of aortic aneurysm patients have shown that the risk of rupture increases with aortic size. However, few studies of acute aortic dissection patients and aortic size exist. We used data from our registry of acute aortic dissection patients to better understand the relationship between aortic diameter and type A dissection. Methods and Results— We examined 591 type A dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection between 1996 and 2005 (mean age, 60.8 years). Maximum aortic diameters averaged 5.3 cm; 349 (59%) patients had aortic diameters <5.5 cm and 229 (40%) patients had aortic diameters <5.0 cm. Independent predictors of dissection at smaller diameters (<5.5 cm) included a history of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 4.57; P=0.04), radiating pain (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 4.0; P=0.03), and increasing age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.05; P=0.03). Marfan syndrome patients were more likely to dissect at larger diameters (odds ratio, 14.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 100; P=0.002). Mortality (27% of patients) was not related to aortic size. Conclusions— The majority of patients with acute type A acute aortic dissection present with aortic diameters <5.5 cm and thus do not fall within current guidelines for elective aneurysm surgery. Methods other than size measurement of the ascending aorta are needed to identify patients at risk for dissection.

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

It is essential that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced and tested in the detection, management, or prevention of disease states. Rigorous and expert analysis of the available data documenting

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)

Table of ContentsI. IntroductionA. Development of GuidelinesB. General ApproachC. Preoperative Clinical EvaluationII. Further Preoperative Testing to Assess Coronary RiskA. Clinical MarkersB. Functional CapacityC. Surgery-Specific RiskIII. Management of Specific Preoperative Cardiovascular Condition

Factors at Admission Associated With Bleeding Risk in Medical Patients: Findings From the IMPROVE Investigators

BACKGROUND Acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients are at risk of VTE. Despite guidelines for VTE prevention, prophylaxis use in these patients is still poor, possibly because of fear of bleeding risk. We used data from the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) to assess in-hospital bleeding incidence and to identify risk factors at admission associated with in-hospital bleeding risk in acutely ill medical patients. METHODS IMPROVE is a multinational, observational study that enrolled 15,156 medical patients. The in-hospital bleeding incidence was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. A multiple regression model analysis was performed to identify risk factors at admission associated with bleeding. RESULTS The cumulative incidence of major and nonmajor in-hospital bleeding within 14 days of admission was 3.2%. Active gastroduodenal ulcer (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.21-7.77), prior bleeding (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.21-5.99), and low platelet count (OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.84-6.18) were the strongest independent risk factors at admission for bleeding. Other bleeding risk factors were increased age, hepatic or renal failure, ICU stay, central venous catheter, rheumatic disease, cancer, and male sex. Using these bleeding risk factors, a risk score was developed to estimate bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS We assessed the incidence of major and clinically relevant bleeding in a large population of hospitalized medical patients and identified risk factors at admission associated with in-hospital bleeding. This information may assist physicians in deciding whether to use mechanical or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

Predictive and Associative Models to Identify Hospitalized Medical Patients at Risk for VTE

BACKGROUND Acutely ill hospitalized medical patients are at risk for VTE. We assessed the incidence of VTE in the observational International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) study and derived VTE risk assessment scores at admission and associative VTE scores during hospitalization. METHODS Data from 15,156 medical patients were analyzed to determine the cumulative incidence of clinically observed VTE over 3 months after admission. Multiple regression analysis identified factors associated with VTE risk. RESULTS Of the 184 patients who developed symptomatic VTE, 76 had pulmonary embolism, and 67 had lower-extremity DVT. Cumulative VTE incidence was 1.0%; 45% of events occurred after discharge. Factors independently associated with VTE were previous VTE, known thrombophilia, cancer, age > 60 years, lower-limb paralysis, immobilization ≥ 7 days, and admission to an ICU or coronary care unit (first four were available at admission). Points were assigned to each factor identified to give a total risk score for each patient. At admission, 67% of patients had a score ≥ 1. During hospitalization, 31% had a score ≥ 2; for a score of 2 or 3, observed VTE risk was 1.5% vs 5.7% for a score ≥ 4. Observed and predicted rates were similar for both models (C statistic, 0.65 and 0.69, respectively). During hospitalization, a score ≥ 2 was associated with higher overall and VTE-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS Weighted VTE risk scores derived from four clinical risk factors at hospital admission can predict VTE risk in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. Scores derived from seven clinical factors during hospitalization may help us to further understand symptomatic VTE risk. These scores require external validation.

ACC/AHA 2006 Guideline Update on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery: Focused Update on Perioperative Beta-Blocker Therapy. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery).

Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery: Focused Update on Perioperative Beta-Blocker Therapy A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update 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, and Society for Vascular Medicine and BiologyThe American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines makes every effort to avoid any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that might arise as a result of an industry relationship or personal interest of the writing committee. Specifically, all members of the writing committee, as well as peer reviewers of the document, were asked to provide disclosure statements of all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These statements are reviewed by the parent task force, reported orally to all members of the writing committee at each meeting, and updated and reviewed by the writing committee as changes occur. Please see Appendix 1 for author relationships with industry and Appendix 2 for peer reviewer relationships with industry. These guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. These guideline recommendations reflect a consensus of expert opinion after a thorough review of the available, current scientific evidence and are intended to improve patient care. If these guidelines are used as the basis for regulatory/payer decisions, the ultimate goal is quality of care and serving the patients best interests. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient.

Sensitivity of the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score, a Novel Guideline-Based Tool for Identification of Acute Aortic Dissection at Initial Presentation Results From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

Background— In 2010, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology released guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease, which identified high-risk clinical features to assist in the early detection of acute aortic dissection. The sensitivity of these risk markers has not been validated. Methods and Results— We examined patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from 1996 to 2009. The number of patients with confirmed acute aortic dissection who presented with 1 or more of 12 proposed clinical risk markers was determined. An aortic dissection detection (ADD) risk score of 0 to 3 was calculated on the basis of the number of risk categories (high-risk predisposing conditions, high-risk pain features, high-risk examination features) in which patients met criteria. The ADD risk score was tested for sensitivity. Of 2538 patients with acute aortic dissection, 2430 (95.7%) were identified by 1 or more of 12 proposed clinical risk markers. With the use of the ADD risk score, 108 patients (4.3%) were identified as low risk (ADD score 0), 927 patients (36.5%) were intermediate risk (ADD score 1), and 1503 patients (59.2%) were high risk (ADD score 2 or 3). Among 108 patients with no clinical risk markers present (ADD score 0), 72 had chest x-rays recorded, of which 35 (48.6%) demonstrated a widened mediastinum. Conclusions— The clinical risk markers proposed in the 2010 thoracic aortic disease guidelines and their application as part of the ADD risk score comprise a highly sensitive clinical tool for the detection of acute aortic dissection.