Vázquez EP, Martínez ÁTG, Lucero CL, Castellanos CJ, Pinto SME

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 21-28
PDF size: 308.61 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system is a widely used method for risk stratification by the surgical team; however, many clinicians misuse it. Proper preoperative assessment reduces costs, surgery cancellation rates, and hospital stays. This study evaluates interobserver variation in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status assignment across specialties during preoperative assessment, aiming to optimize surgical patient protocol. Material and methods: a descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study was conducted at Hospital Angeles Clinica Londres. A questionnaire with 12 hypothetical clinical cases was administered to identify differences in knowledge and usage of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system. Results: eighty specialists were evaluated; 46.9% recognized that the classification assesses patients' physical status, 67.9% were unaware of the latest classification modification, and 79% requested additional tests based on their physical status assignment. Anesthesiologists tended to classify patients more consistently compared to other specialties, which exhibited greater variability in their classifications, potentially leading to inconsistencies. Conclusion: this study highlights the need for better standardization in the use of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system across medical specialties to ensure more uniform assessment of preoperative risk.

REFERENCES

1. Kunze S. Evaluación preoperatoria en el Siglo XXI. Rev Med Clin Condes. 2017; 28: 661-670.

2. Keats AS. The ASA classification of physical status-a recapitulation. Anesthesiology. 1978; 49: 233-236.

3. American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. Available in: http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.html

4. Menke H, Klein A, John KD, Junginger T. Predictive value of ASA classification for the assessment of the perioperative risk. Int Surg. 1993; 78: 266-270.

5. Fitz-Henry J. The ASA classification and peri-operative risk. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011; 93: 185-187.

6. De Cassai A, Boscolo A, Tonetti T, Ban I, Ori C. Assignment of ASA-physical status relates to anesthesiologists' experience: a survey-based national-study. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019; 72: 53-59.

7. Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, Tait G, Wijeysundera DN. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2014; 113: 424-432.

8. Riley R, Holman C, Fletcher D. Inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status classification in a sample of anaesthetists in Western Australia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014; 42: 614-618.

9. Vogt AW, Henson LC. Unindicated preoperative testing: ASA physical status and financial implications. J Clin Anesth. 1997; 9: 437-441.

10. Onuoha OC, Hatch MB, Miano TA, Fleisher LA. The incidence of un-indicated preoperative testing in a tertiary academic ambulatory center: a retrospective cohort study. Perioper Med. 2015; 4: 14.

11. Neragi-Miandoab S, Wayne M, Cioroiu M, Zank LM, Mills C. Preoperative evaluation and risk assessment in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Surg Today. 2010; 40: 108-113.

12. Curatolo C, Goldberg A, Maerz D, Lin HM, Shah H, Trinh M. ASA physical status assignment by non-anesthesia providers: do surgeons consistently downgrade the ASA score preoperatively? J Clin Anesth. 2017; 38: 123-128.

13. Kuza CM, Hatzakis G, Nahmias JT. The assignment of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification for adult polytrauma patients: results from a survey and future considerations. Anesth Analg. 2017; 125: 1960-1966.

14. Kwa CXW, Cui J, Lim DYZ, Sim YE, Ke Y, Abdullah HR. Discordant American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification between anesthesiologists and surgeons and its correlation with adverse patient outcomes. Sci Rep. 2022; 12: 7110.

15. Kluger MT, Tham EJ, Coleman NA, Runciman WB, Bullock MF. Inadequate pre-operative evaluation and preparation: a review of 197 reports from the Australian incident monitoring study. Anaesthesia. 2000; 55: 1173-1178.

16. Yen C, Tsai M, Macario, A. Preoperative evaluation clinics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2010; 23: 167-172.

17. Pollard JB. Economic aspects of an anesthesia preoperative evaluation clinic. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2002; 15: 257-261.

18. Shah NN, Vetter TR. Comprehensive preoperative assessment and global optimization. Anesthesiol Clin. 2018; 36: 259-280.

19. London MJ, Itani KM, Perrino AC Jr, Guarino PD, Schwartz GG, Cunningham F, et al. Perioperative beta-blockade: a survey of physician attitudes in the department of Veterans Affairs. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004; 18: 14-24.

20. Montero E, Hernández C, López J. Efecto de la adscripción de internistas a un servicio quirúrgico. Med Clin, 2005; 124: 332-335.

21. Alem N, Kain Z. Evolving healthcare delivery paradigms and the optimization of "value" in anesthesiology. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017; 30: 223-229.

22. David GS, Stanley HR. Integrated assessment and consultation for the preoperative patient. Med Clin North Am. 2009; 93: 963-977.

23. Ahmad M, Shaikh A, Ahmad AS, Awan N. Enhanced recovery program - impact of ASA grade on length of hospital stay in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasties. Surgeon. 2023; 21: 16–20.

24. Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, Zehm CF, Shabot SM, Minhajuddin A, et al. Adding examples to the ASA-physical status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology. 2017; 126: 614-622.

25. Abouleish AE, Vinta SR, Shabot SM, Patel NV, Hurwitz EE, Krishnamurthy P, et al. Improving agreement of ASA physical status class between pre-anesthesia screening and day of surgery by adding institutional-specific and ASA-approved examples: a quality improvement project. Perioper Med (Lond). 2020; 9: 34.