Evaluation of electronic screening in the preoperative process

Study objective: Rising patient numbers, with increasing complexity, challenge the sustainability of the current preoperative process. We evaluated whether an electronic screening application can distinguish patients that need a preoperative consultation from low-risk patients that can be first seen on the day of surgery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Preoperative clinic of a tertiary academic hospital. Patients: 1395 adult patients scheduled for surgery or procedural sedation. Interventions: We assessed a novel electronic preoperative screening application which consists of a questionnaire with a maximum of 185 questions regarding the patient's medical history and current state of health. The application provides an extensive health report, including an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification and a recommendation for either consultation by an anesthesiologist at the preoperative clinic or approval for screening on the day of surgery. Measurements: The recommendation of the electronic screening system was compared with the regular preoperative assessment using measures of diagnostic accuracy and agreement. Secondary outcomes included ASA-PS classification, patient satisfaction, and the anesthesiologists' opinion on the completeness and quality of the screening report. Results: Sensitivity to detect patients who needed additional consultation was 97.5% (95%CI 91.2–99.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95%CI 0.02–0.32). 407 (29.2%) patients were approved for surgery by both electronic screening and anesthesiologist. In 909 (65.2%) cases, the electronic screening system recommended further consultation while the anesthesiologist approved the patient (specificity 30.9% (95%CI 28.4–33.5); poor level of agreement (ĸ = 0.04)). Agreement regarding ASA-PS classification scores was weak (ĸ = 0.48). The majority of patients (78.0%) felt positive about electronic screening replacing the regular preoperative assessment. Conclusions: Electronic screening can reliably identify patients who can have their first contact with an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery, potentially allowing a major proportion of patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic

Evaluation of electronic screening in the preoperative process

Study objective: Rising patient numbers, with increasing complexity, challenge the sustainability of the current preoperative process. We evaluated whether an electronic screening application can distinguish patients that need a preoperative consultation from low-risk patients that can be first seen on the day of surgery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Preoperative clinic of a tertiary academic hospital. Patients: 1395 adult patients scheduled for surgery or procedural sedation. Interventions: We assessed a novel electronic preoperative screening application which consists of a questionnaire with a maximum of 185 questions regarding the patient's medical history and current state of health. The application provides an extensive health report, including an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification and a recommendation for either consultation by an anesthesiologist at the preoperative clinic or approval for screening on the day of surgery. Measurements: The recommendation of the electronic screening system was compared with the regular preoperative assessment using measures of diagnostic accuracy and agreement. Secondary outcomes included ASA-PS classification, patient satisfaction, and the anesthesiologists' opinion on the completeness and quality of the screening report. Results: Sensitivity to detect patients who needed additional consultation was 97.5% (95%CI 91.2–99.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95%CI 0.02–0.32). 407 (29.2%) patients were approved for surgery by both electronic screening and anesthesiologist. In 909 (65.2%) cases, the electronic screening system recommended further consultation while the anesthesiologist approved the patient (specificity 30.9% (95%CI 28.4–33.5); poor level of agreement (ĸ = 0.04)). Agreement regarding ASA-PS classification scores was weak (ĸ = 0.48). The majority of patients (78.0%) felt positive about electronic screening replacing the regular preoperative assessment. Conclusions: Electronic screening can reliably identify patients who can have their first contact with an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery, potentially allowing a major proportion of patients to safely bypass the preoperative clinic

Cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents for the treatment of cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the risk of early and late cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents in patients treated for breast or ovarian cancer, lymphoma, myeloma or sarcoma.Methods: Randomized controlled trials were sought using comprehensive searches of electronic databases in June 2008. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also scanned for additional articles. Outcomes investigated were early or late clinical and sub-clinical cardiotoxicity. Trial quality was assessed, and data were pooled through meta-analysis where appropriate.Results: Fifty-five published RCTs were included; the majority were on women with advanced breast cancer. A significantly greater risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was found with anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline regimens (OR 5.43 95% confidence interval: 2.34, 12.62), anthracycline versus mitoxantrone (OR 2.88 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 6.44), and bolus versus continuous anthracycline infusions (OR 4.13 95% confidence interval: 1.75, 9.72). Risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was significantly lower with epirubicin versus doxorubicin (OR 0.39 95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.78), liposomal versus non-liposomal doxorubicin (OR 0.18 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.38) and with a concomitant cardioprotective agent (OR 0.21 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.33). No statistical heterogeneity was found for these pooled analyses. A similar pattern of results were found for subclinical cardiotoxicity; with risk significantly greater with anthracycline containing regimens and bolus administration; and significantly lower risk with epirubicin, liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin but not epirubicin, and with concomitant use of a cardioprotective agent. Low to moderate statistical heterogeneity was found for two of the five pooled analyses, perhaps due to the different criteria used for reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Meta-analyses of any cardiotoxicity (clinical and subclinical) showed moderate to high statistical heterogeneity for four of five pooled analyses; criteria for any cardiotoxic event differed between studies. Nonetheless the pattern of results was similar to those for clinical or subclinical cardiotoxicity described above.Conclusions: Evidence is not sufficiently robust to support clear evidence-based recommendations on different anthracycline treatment regimens, or for routine use of cardiac protective agents or liposomal formulations. There is a need to improve cardiac monitoring in oncology trials.<br/