• Users Online: 2747
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

Year : 2007  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 269 Table of Contents     

Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk

MD, Director Medical Services, Sr.Consultant & Chief, Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, 124, Mukundapur, Kolkata - 700099, India

Date of Web Publication20-Mar-2010

Correspondence Address:
Emmanuel Rupert
Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, 124,Mukundapur, Kolkata - 700099
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Keywords: Preoperative, Cardiac risk

How to cite this article:
Rupert E. Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk. Indian J Anaesth 2007;51:269

How to cite this URL:
Rupert E. Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2007 [cited 2021 Feb 26];51:269. Available from: https://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2007/51/4/269/61156

   Introduction Top

Annually around 100 million adults undergo non-car­diac surgery and the incidence of cardiac complications is between 0.5-1.0% which is the leading cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality [1] . The incidence of these complications is higher in patients undergoing vas­cular surgical procedures [2] . This increased risk of perioperative cardiac complications is due to both the pa­tient characteristics and the specific surgical procedures.

Advances in anaesthetic and surgical techniques have improved perioperative outcome in recent years. There is a trend towards performing procedures in older and sicker patients, among whom the prevalence of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease is increasing. This tendency and the fear of perioperative cardiac complica­tions prompt preoperative risk identification, stratification and modification of risk factors.

This article is an update on preoperative assessment of patients at risk of cardiac disease undergoing non-car­diac surgery.

   Goals Top

  1. Identify patients at risk through history, physical ex­amination and electrocardiogram (EKG).
  2. Evaluate the severity of underlying cardiac disease through cardiac testing taking care to minimize ex­penditure and to perform specialized tests only on high-risk patients. Testing low-risk patients increases costs and may cause harm by delaying a non-car­diac operation.
  3. Stratify the extent of risk and determine the need for preoperative interventions to minimize the risk of perioperative cardiac complications.

   Evaluation of cardiac risk Top

The cornerstone of preoperative cardiac evaluation includes review of history [Table 1], physical examination [Table 2], diagnostic tests [Table 3], and knowledge of the planned surgical procedure. Preoperative resting elec­trocardiogram is readily available, inexpensive, easy to perform and able to interpret and detect previous myo­cardial infarction, acute ischaemia, or arrhythmias. The presence of abnormalities such as Q waves and non si­nus rhythms has been shown to correlate with adverse postoperative cardiac events.

   Overview of cardiac risk indices Top

A number of risk indices have been developed [Table 4]. The accuracy of each of these risk indices is contro­versial. A cardiac risk index to be useful, it has to be ap­plicable to all and be consistently accurate.

ASA [6] - used for assessment of the patient's overall physical status and to predict morbidity and mortality.

NYHA/CCS [8] - used for risk stratification of medi­cal patients with angina, but they have been adapted for use in surgical patients.

Cardiac Risk Index (CRI) - Goldman et al [9] iden­tified 9 independent variables in a prospective study of 1001 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery that corre­lated with an increased risk of perioperative cardiac events. These variables were recent myocardial infarction, greater than 5 premature ventricular contractions per minute on a preoperative EKG, presence of jugular venous distension or a third heart sound, cardiac rhythm other than sinus, age greater than 70, emergency surgery, aortic stenosis, and intraperitoneal, intrathoracic, or aortic surgery. They developed a risk index score based on the presence of these factors.

Modified Cardiac Risk Index - Detsky et al [11] validated and further modified Goldman's cardiac risk in­dex by giving the type of surgery a separate pretest prob­ability. He modified the congestive heart failure (CHF) variables and included recent or previous myocardial inf­arction and severity of angina.

Cardiac Risk Index by Goldman and modification by Detsky were helpful in identifying risk factors for car­diac morbidity but were very cumbersome to apply. Fur­thermore, these indices performed less well when applied to vascular surgical candidates. [9],[10].

Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) by Lee et al [7] in 1999 derived and prospectively validated a simpli­fied risk index based on the original Goldman index. Their study identified 6 independent predictors of adverse car­diac outcome in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

  1. High-risk surgical procedure - defined as thoracic, abdominal, or pelvic vascular (e.g., aorta, renal, me­senteric) surgery.
  2. Ischaemic heart disease, defined as

    History of myocardial infarction

    History of or current angina

    Use of sublingual nitroglycerin,

    Positive exercise test

    Q waves on ECG

    Patients who have undergone PTCA or CABG and who have chest pain presumed to be of ischaemic origin

  3. Heart failure, defined as

    Left ventricular failure by physical examination

    History of paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea

    History of pulmonary edema

    S 3 or bilateral rales on physical examination

    Pulmonary edema on chest x-ray

  4. Cerebrovascular disease, defined as

    History of transient ischaemic attack

    History of cerebrovascular accident

  5. Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

  6. Chronic renal insufficiency, defined as

  7. Baseline creatinine >2.0 mg.dL -1

The rates of major cardiac complications were found to be 0.5%, 1.3%, 4%, and 9% in patients with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more of these risk factors, respectively. This revised cardiac risk index has been validated in number of studies.

   American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines Top

The standard of care in recent years is defined by American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Asso­ciation (ACC/AHA) who have developed consensus guide­lines for the preoperative cardiac evaluation. It was pub­lished in 1996 then updated in 2002 [3],[5] to include additional data on beta-blockers, arrhythmias, and coronary evalua­tion and interventions. The ACC/AHA guidelines provide a framework for screening and identifying patients who are at high risk for perioperative cardiac events (PCE). History, physical examination and preoperative EKG form the basis for risk stratification. According to the AHA/ACC guidelines, risk for PCE depends on the patient's medical history, current functional status, and the specific surgical procedure. The guidelines stress that the indications for further testing and preoperative intervention are, in gen­eral, the same as in the nonoperative setting. For all cases this algorithmic approach should be used by anaesthesiologists, surgeons and internists for management

The ACC algorithm employs a strategy, using the urgency of surgery, history of previous coronary evalua­tion or treatment, clinical risk predictors, surgery-specific risk, and a patient's functional capacity.

Clinical predictors of perioperative cardiac events (PCE)

With respect to their medical history, the guidelines identify ''major,'' ''intermediate,'' and ''minor'' predic­tors of increased risk [Table 5].

   Functional capacity Top

Exercise tolerance a determinant of perioperative risk is evaluated by the estimated energy requirement [Table 6] for various activities. The Duke Activity Status Index provides the physician with a set of questions to determine a patient's functional capacity. One MET rep­resents the oxygen consumption of a resting adult (3.5 ml.kg -1 .min -1 ). A cutoff of 4 METS is used for decision ­making in the algorithm as perioperative cardiac risks are increased in patients unable to meet a 4-MET demand during most normal daily activities.

Functional capacity is defined as poor (<4 METS), moderate (4-7 METS), or good (>7-10 METS) based on evaluation of the patient's daily activity. Measurements on a treadmill inducing ischaemia at low-level exercise (<5 MET or heart rate <100 / min) identifies a high-risk group, whereas the achievement of more than 7 MET (or heart rate >130 / min) without ischaemia identifies a low-risk group. In the Revised cardiac risk index by Lee et al [7] functional status was not independently associated with risk. If patients reduce exertion because of cardiac symp­toms but still meet a 4-MET threshold, clinicians will un­derestimate risk. Conversely, noncardiac functional limi­tations (e.g., knee or back pain) may falsely overestimate cardiac risk.

Surgery-specific risk factors

Surgery-specific cardiac risk [Table 7] is related to the type of surgery and the duration and intensity of perioperative physiological stress associated with the pro­cedures.

One should also consider the risk of not operating on the patient while estimating the risk of surgery [6]. It is unethical to refuse a procedure when their survival is threatened by the disease for example oncological or limb salvaging procedures, infections requiring surgery, or dis­abling orthopaedic procedures. The institutions infrastruc­ture and overall perioperative care must also be taken into account, as it influences outcome of procedures. Risk reduction strategies include perioperative beta-blockade, staged procedures, limiting the extent of planned proce­dure, maintaining normothermia, avoiding anaemia and good postoperative analgesia.

   Algorithm (ACC/AHA) for stepwise approach on perioperative evaluation Top

  1. This is an algorithm [Figure 1] proposed by ACC/AHA for decisions regarding the need for further evaluation.
  2. It is based on expert opinion and incorporates 8 steps. First evaluate urgency of surgery and appropriate­ness of formal preoperative assessment then deter­mine whether patient has had previous revascularizat­ion or coronary evaluation.
  3. Unstable coronary syndromes are identified and ap­propriate treatment started i.e. delay or cancel sur­gery, medical management, coronary angiogram. Sub­sequent treatment is dictated by findings in angiogram.
  4. For intermediate and minor clinical predictors the de­cision for further testing depends on interaction of clinical risk factors, surgery specific risk and func­tional capacity.
  5. Stepwise approach to assessment of CAD in patients planned for noncardiac surgery is clinically effective and cost effective.

   Clinical situations which should alert the anaesthesiologist Top

The following examples should potentially alert anaesthesiologists regarding need to evaluate and pro­vide further testing.

  1. Patients with acute coronary syndromes, such as un­stable angina or decompensated heart failure from ischaemia are at high risk of developing further dec­ompensation, myocardial infarction, and death dur­ing the perioperative period. Such patients should not undergo noncardiac surgery.
  2. If surgery is emergent consider stabilization by phar­macologic and mechanical interventions and proceed for surgery without delay. Consider risk stratification in the postoperative period. Avoid further testing un­less the results will impact perioperative management.
  3. Patients with critical aortic stenosis may be asymptom­atic and evaluation of systolic ejection murmur is war­ranted. Patients with critical aortic stenosis may have a high risk of undergoing elective noncardiac surgery.
  4. Patients with dyspnea on mild exertion are at high risk of developing perioperative ventricular dysfunc­tion, myocardial ischaemia and MI. Consider addi­tional monitoring and testing as they have high prob­ability of extensive CAD.
  5. Previous MI has shown an increased risk of reinfarction if the MI was within six months of sur­gery. With the advent of thrombolytic therapy and angioplasty this time interval may no longer be valid. The American Heart association and American Col­lege of Cardiology Task Force now advocates MI of less than six weeks as the group with the highest risk. Subsequent to this risk stratification is based on presentation of disease with patients with active is­chaemia being at highest risk.
  6. Watch for peripheral vascular disease as they have a high association with CAD.
  7. Diabetes mellitus especially if long standing with evi­dence of end organ damage have a higher probability of silent MI and ischaemia. Diabetes is an indepen­dent risk factor for perioperative cardiac morbidity.
  8. Patients with hypertension and left ventricular hy­pertrophy undergoing noncardiac surgery have a higher perioperative risk.

   Tests to confirm cardiovascular disease Top

Preoperative testing is aimed at answering ques­tions raised by history and physical examination. No car­diovascular test should be performed if the results will not change perioperative management. No test exists that fully stratify all risks, because perioperative cardiac events are multifactorial [17] .

   Indications for preoperative cardiac testing Top

  1. Patients with intermediate clinical predictors
  2. Prognostic assessment of patients undergoing initial evaluation for suspected or proven coronary artery disease (CAD).
  3. Evaluation of patients with change in clinical status
  4. Evaluation of adequacy of medical treatment
  5. Prognostic assessment after an acute coronary syndrome.

Noninvasive tests can be divided into resting tests, exercise tests and pharmacologic tests with myocardial perfusion imaging or echocardiography.

   Resting echocardiography Top

Resting echocardiography is a simple and inexpensive form of cardiac imaging. The assessment of resting left ventricular function is not routinely recommended for preoperative screening. It is indicated for the detection of impaired left ventricular function and valvular heart disease. Impaired left ventricular function is no longer a predictor for short-term outcome due to improved perioperative care but remains a significant predictor for long-term adverse cardiac events. Echocardiogram does not reliably predict perioperative ischaemic events but it is of value in assessing valvular pathology. The presence and severity of aortic stenosis is associated with a five­fold increased risk of perioperative cardiac events [19] . Con­sidering this, it is important to detect the presence and significance of valve disease.

   Information Top

  1. Regional wall motion abnormalities

  2. Type - hypokinesia, akinesia, dyskinesia

    Location - anterior, septal, lateral, inferior, posterior

  3. Ejection fraction
  4. Chamber enlargements / hypertrophy
  5. Assessment of valve morphology and function
  6. Assessment of congenital and other diseases

   Stress tests Top

Exercise stress test


Dobutamine stress echocardiography

Dipyridamole thallium scintigraphy

Stress tests are dynamic investigations, which dem­onstrate the ischaemic threshold, the maximal tolerated heart rate, the localization, and the amount of threatened myocardium. An interruption of the test before reaching the maximal heart rate identifies an increased risk of perioperative ischaemic events [17] . The positive and nega­tive predictive value of all stress tests is in the range of 20-30% and 95-99% respectively as the incidence of perioperative cardiac complications is low (<10%) and more than 90% of patients have a straightforward perioperative course.

   Exercise stress testing Top

Exercise stress testing is the first screening step in stress testing of ambulatory patients. It is a widely avail­able and inexpensive method of screening.

   Physiology Top

With exercise mean arterial pressure increases de­spite significant decreases in systemic vascular resistance due to marked increases in cardiac output as much as fourfold during maximal exercise. The increases in car­diac output are due to heart rate which can increase by upto 300% and stroke volume increase by upto 20%. The determinants of myocardial MVO2 that are affected by exercise are - heart rate, wall tension and contractility. This increase in oxygen consumption is met by increase in blood flow and minimally by increase in extraction. The increase in blood flow is achieved by marked vasodilation of coronary arterial bed in response to metabolic and other demands during exercise. Coronary vascular reserve plays an important role in ischaemic heart response to exer­cise. Impairment of reserve leads to myocardial ischaemia and its sequelae, arrhythmias and pump dysfunction [18] .

   Limitations and interpretation of ECG exercise tests Top

  1. Only half of the patients achieve peak heart rates > 75% of their age-predicted maximum.
  2. A negative test in a patient who achieves the tar­geted heart rate-blood pressure product is usually as­sociated with low risk for perioperative cardiac com­plications.
  3. Ischaemia induced by low-level exercise indicates high risk.
  4. Failure to reach the target heart rate makes the test inadequate for excluding myocardial ischaemia un­less a normal workload is achieved despite the lower heart rate and such patients are at increased risk for perioperative complications based on their poor func­tional capacity.
  5. The test has a positive predictive value of 18% (range 5-81%) and a negative predictive value to be 97% (range 90-100%).


  1. Obtain and document details of exercise stress test rather than stating it was normal or abnormal.
  2. The peak heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and rate-­pressure product (or double product)
  3. METS and percent of target heart rate achieved
  4. ECG changes, symptoms, or arrhythmias occurring during the test and at recovery phase.
  5. A patient with symptoms or ischaemia at a lower workload is at increased risk compared with a patient able to reach a higher metabolic (MET) threshold.
  6. The anaesthesiologist should be aware of patient's threshold heart rate, blood pressure and double prod­uct to help manage the patient's blood pressure and heart rate intraoperatively so that the double product remains below the ischaemic threshold.

Pharmacologic testing

Mechanism of action:

  1. Coronary artery vasodilatation, (dipyridamole or ad­enosine) and or
  2. Increased myocardial oxygen demand -(dobutamine).

The decision of which test to be used should be based on the expertise in one's institution, consideration of relative contraindications to dipyridamole or dobutamine.

Dipyridamole thallium scanning (DTS) Dipy­ridamole decreases adenosine uptake. Adenosine causes coronary vasodilatation preferentially distributing blood to normal coronaries and reducing blood flow distal to coronary steno­sis. Myocardial imaging with thallium initially and after sev­eral hours demonstrates defects in myocardium at risk. Prior to testing, patients should avoid theophylline preparations and caffeine because of their antagonistic effect on dipyridamole. Side effects associated with the use of dipyridamole include bronchospasm, chest pain, headache, and dizziness; these symptoms often can be reversed by administration of IV aminophylline. Pooled data showed a positive predictive value of 16% (range 6-67%) and a negative predictive value of almost 99% (range 98-100%)

Dobutamine stress echocardiogram (DSE) - Dobutamine infusion increases heart rate and inotropy and echocardiography is performed at discrete points to detect new or worsened regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMA). Dobutamine stress echocardiogram has a posi­tive predictive value of 15% (range 7-25%) and a nega­tive predictive value of 99% (range 93-100%). The extent and severity of new or worsening RWMA, particularly at low ischaemic thresholds, is predictive of both short- and long-term outcome. Dobutamine testing should be avoided in patients with significant arrhythmias, marked hyperten­sion or hypotension, and suspected critical aortic stenosis.

   Ambulatory ECG monitoring Top

The positive predictive value for perioperative MI and death was approximately 10% with negative predic­tive value of 95%). The use of this test is limited.

[TAG:2]Risk reduction strategies [26][/TAG:2]

  1. Perioperative management

    1. Anaesthetic techniques

      1. General versus regional anaesthesia
      2. Temperature regulation
      3. Invasive monitoring - pulmonary artery catheter, transesophageal echocardiography for high risk surgical procedures

    2. Surgical approach

      1. Laparoscopic, endovascular procedures

  2. Medical management

    1. Beta blockers
    2. Other anti-ischaemic medications
    3. Statins

  3. Preoperative coronary revascularization / valvulo­plasty

   Rationale for perioperative beta blocker therapy Top

Numerous investigators have studied the role of vari­ous beta-blockers in different perioperative settings and have found a reduction in ischaemic events and death [21],[22],[23],[24]. There may even be a benefit of giving beta-blockers intraopera­tively to patients who have not received them preoperatively.

Cardiovascular and other effects (anti-arrhythmic, anti-inflammatory, altered gene expression and receptor activity, protection against apoptosis) of â-blockers may account for their cardio-protective effect in the operative and non-operative setting. All â-blockers, except those with intrinsic sympathetic activity reduce mortality. Catechola­mines increase each of the four determinants of myocar­dial oxygen consumption (i.e. heart rate, preload, afterload, and contractility). â-Blockers have the potential of reduc­ing myocardial O2 consumption (thus improving the myo­cardial O 2 supply/demand balance) by decreasing sympa­thetic tone and myocardial contractility, in turn resulting in decreases in heart rate and arterial pressure [20] .

[TAG:2]Criteria for use of perioperative β blockers :[/TAG:2] [20]

  1. Use if patients meet any two or more criteria -

    Age > 65 years, Hypertension, Diabetes mellitus not requiring insulin, Current smokers, Serum cholesterol > 240mg.dl -1 (6.2 mmol.L -1 )
  2. Use if patients meet any one of revised cardiac risk index criteria [7]
Recommendations for preoperative coronary angiogram / coronary intervention: The decision for or against preoperative angiogram, coronary revascularization, percutaneous interventions (PCI) or coronary artery by­pass grafting (CABG), should be based entirely on univer­sally accepted medical indications for coronary revascularization and the appropriate technique. The phi­losophy of performing preoperative coronary revascularization merely 'to get the patient through surgery' is contrary to all available evidence. If the decision for pre­operative coronary revascularization is made, timing with respect to the subsequent surgery appears crucial.

Coronary stenting: If a coronary stent is placed, elective non-cardiac surgery should be delayed for an ab­solute minimum of 2 weeks, but ideally for 4-6 weeks for bare metal stents and six months for drug eluting stents as this delay will allow completion of a course of dual antiplatelet medication and allow bare metal stents to be endothelialized. If patients require elective non-cardiac surgery within 2 months of PCI, there are several options. If surgery (and the surgeon)allows dual antiplatelet therapy (mostly clopidogrel and aspirin) to be continued perioperatively, a drug-eluting stent can be placed. If sur­gery (or the surgeon) does not allow perioperative con­tinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, a drug-eluting stent should probably not be used. Survivors of PCI face the perioperative risk of coronary (stent) thrombosis or hem­orrhage associated with discontinuation or continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, respectively.

Preoperative surgical coronary revascul­arization: The indications for CABG before noncardiac surgery remain the same as in the non operative setting. Timing is crucial if major non-cardiac surgery is indicated following recent CABG. Available data is limited and sug­gests postponing elective major noncardiac surgery for at least 4-6 weeks, possibly for even up to 6 months after CABG. In patients who survive CABG the risk of subse­quent noncardiac surgery is low. CABG significantly im­proves survival in patients with peripheral vascular dis­ease and triple vessel coronary disease especially with depressed ventricular function [4],[25].

   Conclusion Top

Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk in patients undergoing non cardiac surgery is a challenge to the anaesthesiologist. A thorough history, physical examina­tion, judicious use of tests is usually sufficient to assess patients and categorize them into a low-risk, intermedi­ate-risk and high-risk for surgery. It is important to com­bine preoperative assessment of cardiac risk with perioperative cardiac risk reduction strategies and opti­mization of medical treatment to improve patients' long­ term cardiac outcome. The therapeutic strategies may differ according to the situation: medical treatment may be optimized, surgical procedure and anaesthetic man­agement modified, or the risk/benefit ratio of a surgical procedure evaluated differently.[Table 8]

   References Top

1.Mangano DT, Goldman L. Preoperative assessment of patients with known or suspected coronary disease. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1750-1756.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
2.Mangano DT. Adverse outcomes after surgery in the year 2001­a continuing odyssey. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:561-564.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
3.Eagle KA, Berger PB, Calkins H, et al. ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for non car­diac 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 2002; 105; 1257-1267.  Back to cited text no. 3      
4.Eagle KA, Rihal CS, Mickel MC, et al. Cardiac risk of non car­diac surgery: influence of coronary disease and type of surgery in 3368 operations. CASS Investigators and University of Michi­gan Heart Care Program. CoronaryArtery Surgery Study. Circu­lation 1997; 96:1882-7.  Back to cited text no. 4      
5.Eagle KA, Brundage BH, Chaitman BR, et al. Guidelines for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for non cardiac surgery. Report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27:910-48.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]    
6.Palda VA, Detsky AS. Perioperative assessment and manage­ment of risk from coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:313-28.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
7.Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100:1043-9.  Back to cited text no. 7  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
8.American Society of Anesthesiologists. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963; 24:111.  Back to cited text no. 8      
9.Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR, et al. Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in non cardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med 1977; 297:845-50.  Back to cited text no. 9  [PUBMED]    
10.Cooperman M, Pug B, Martin Jr EW, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in patients with peripheral vascular disease. Surgery 1978; 84:505-9.  Back to cited text no. 10      
11.Detsky AS, Abrams HB, Forbath N, et al. Cardiac assessment for patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.A multifactorial clini­cal risk index. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146:2131-4.  Back to cited text no. 11  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
12.Larsen SF, Olesen KH, Jacobsen E, et al. Prediction of cardiac risk in non-cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J 1987;8:179-85.  Back to cited text no. 12  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
13.Pedersen T, Eliasen K, Henriksen E. A prospective study of risk factors and cardiopulmonary complications associated with an­esthesia and surgery: risk indicators of cardiopulmonary mor­bidity. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1990; 34:144-55.  Back to cited text no. 13  [PUBMED]    
14.Vanzetto G, Machecourt J, Blendea D, et al. Additive value of thallium single-photon emission computed tomography myo­cardial imaging for prediction of perioperative events in clini­cally selected high cardiac risk patients having abdominal aortic surgery. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77:143-8.  Back to cited text no. 14  [PUBMED]    
15.Chassot PG, Delabays A and Spahn DR. Preoperative evalua­tion of patients with, or at risk of, coronary artery disease un­dergoing non-cardiac surgery. Br JAnaesth 2002; 89: 747-59.  Back to cited text no. 15      
16.Cohn SL. Preoperative risk evaluation and perioperative man­agement of patients with coronary disease. Med Clin N Am 2003:87; 111-136.  Back to cited text no. 16      
17.Mangano DT, Goldman L. Preoperative assessment of patients with known or suspected coronary disease. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1750-6.  Back to cited text no. 17  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
18.Mangano DT. Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk: In: Kaplan JA, Konstadt SN, Reich DL, editors, Cardiac Anesthesia, Phila­delphia, Saunders, 4th Edition, 1999: 3-47.  Back to cited text no. 18      
19.Kertai MD, Bountioukos M, Boersma E, et al. Aortic stenosis: an underestimated risk factor for perioperative complications in pa­tients undergoing noncardiac surgery.Am J Med 2004; 116:8-13.  Back to cited text no. 19  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
20.Auerbach AD, Goldman L. (3 blockers and reduction of cardiac events after non cardiac surgery. JAMA 2002; 287: 1435- 1444.  Back to cited text no. 20  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
21.Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1789-94.  Back to cited text no. 21  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
22.Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al. Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteris­tics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:1865-73.  Back to cited text no. 22  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
23.Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. Bisoprolol reduces cardiac death and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients as long as 2 years after successful major vascular surgery. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:1353-8.  Back to cited text no. 23  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
24.Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, et al. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after non cardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Preoperative Ischaemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1713-20.  Back to cited text no. 24  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
25.Foster ED, Davis KB, Carpenter JA, et al. Risk of non cardiac operation in patients with defined coronary disease: The Coro­nary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1986; 41:42-50.  Back to cited text no. 25  [PUBMED]    
26.AuerbachA and Goldman L. Assessing and reducing cardiac risk of non cardiac surgery. Circulation 2006; 113: 1361 - 1376.  Back to cited text no. 26      


  [Figure 1]

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Evaluation of ca...
    Overview of card...
    American College...
    Functional capacity
    Algorithm (ACC/A...
    Clinical situati...
    Tests to confirm...
    Indications for ...
    Resting echocard...
    Stress tests
    Exercise stress ...
    Limitations and ...
    Ambulatory ECG m...
    Risk reduction s...
    Rationale for pe...
    Criteria for use...
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1725    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal