Ejection fraction alone is an insufficient marker of short-term perioperative risk and should be integrated into a multidimensional assessment including functional capacity, volume status, and biomarkers.
Patients undergoing perioperative cardiovascular risk assessment
Perioperative cardiovascular risk assessment
This review highlights that left ventricular ejection fraction should not be used in isolation for perioperative risk assessment, advocating instead for a multidimensional approach incorporating functional capacity, volume status, and advanced echocardiographic parameters.
Abstract Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is one of the most frequently cited cardiac parameters in perioperative risk assessment and is often used as a surrogate marker of global cardiac stability. However, EF was validated primarily in chronic cardiovascular disease and long-term heart failure management, raising important questions about its suitability as a dominant marker of short-term perioperative risk. EF does not capture key determinants of perioperative vulnerability, including diastolic function, ventricular compliance, right ventricular function, venous congestion, or contractile reserve. Contemporary clinical data suggest that only severely reduced EF (< 30%) is consistently associated with markedly increased perioperative risk, whereas mildly to moderately reduced EF in clinically stable patients often carries less prognostic significance than preserved EF in the presence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), congestion, or right ventricular dysfunction. Common perioperative scenarios such as HFpEF, distributive shock, hypovolemia, venous congestion, and chronic compensated heart failure illustrate that EF may substantially underestimate or overestimate true hemodynamic vulnerability depending on the physiological context. In contrast, functional capacity, volume status, and clinical stability emerge as more robust determinants of short-term perioperative risk. Advanced echocardiographic parameters, including diastolic indices, global longitudinal strain (GLS), and focused assessment of right ventricular function, together with biomarkers provide a more physiologically coherent risk profile. The uncritical use of EF as a primary perioperative risk marker is not supported by current evidence. For anesthesiologists, EF should be interpreted as one component within a multidimensional, physiology-guided assessment that integrates focused perioperative ultrasound, clinical history, and targeted biomarkers to more accurately characterize perioperative cardiovascular risk.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Marco Rabis
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Patrick Moldzio
Marienhospital Bottrop
Perioperative Medicine
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Montefiore Medical Center
Marienhospital Bottrop
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Rabis et al. (Wed,) conducted a review in Perioperative cardiovascular risk. Ejection fraction assessment was evaluated. Ejection fraction alone is an insufficient marker of short-term perioperative risk and should be integrated into a multidimensional assessment including functional capacity, volume status, and biomarkers.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69fd7ef7bfa21ec5bbf07504 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-026-00690-5