Key result
Preoperative cardiac assessment algorithm emphasizes myocardial perfusion imaging for risk stratifying noncardiac surgery patients.
This review provides a comprehensive algorithm for preoperative cardiac assessment in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, emphasizing the role of myocardial perfusion imaging for risk stratification.
May inform preoperative risk stratification with MPI; leaves open the need for prospective validation.
The increasing number of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing major noncardiac surgery justifies guidelines concerning preoperative cardiac evaluation. This is compounded by increasing chances for a volatile perioperative period if the underlying cardiac problems are left uncorrected prior to major noncardiac surgeries. Preoperative cardiac evaluation requires the clinician to assess the patient's probability to have CAD, severity and stability of CAD, placing these in perspective regarding the likelihood of a perioperative cardiac complication based on the planned surgical procedure. Coronary events like new onset ischemia, infarction, or revascularization, induce a high-risk period of 6 weeks, and an intermediate-risk period of 3 months before performing noncardiac surgery. This delay is unwarranted in cases where surgery is the mainstay of treatment. The objective of this review is to offer a comprehensive algorithm in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and highlight the importance of myocardial perfusion imaging in risk stratifying these patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Padma Subramanyam (2014) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Preoperative cardiac evaluation and myocardial perfusion imaging was evaluated. This review provides a comprehensive algorithm for preoperative cardiac assessment and highlights the importance of myocardial perfusion imaging in risk stratifying patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: