Effect of the Gupta Score on Pre-operative Cardiology Consultation Requests in Noncardiac Nonvascular Surgery.

Funda Atar, Fatma Özkan Sipahioğlu, Gülsen Keskin, Aslı Dönmez
{"title":"Effect of the Gupta Score on Pre-operative Cardiology Consultation Requests in Noncardiac Nonvascular Surgery.","authors":"Funda Atar, Fatma Özkan Sipahioğlu, Gülsen Keskin, Aslı Dönmez","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2023.231464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cardiologists are the most frequently consulted specialists during pre-operative evaluations. However, unnecessary cardiology consultations (CC) can increase cardiologists' workload without impacting anaesthesia practice, resulting in delayed surgeries and additional financial burdens. We hypothesize that using Gupta during the preoperative period can reduce these adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study included patients scheduled for elective noncardiac, nonvascular surgeries who underwent pre-operative assessment. Patients who had no specific risk index used for preoperative cardiac risk evaluation were classified as Group I, and those evaluated using the Gupta scale were classified as Group II. The study compared preoperative CC, diagnostic tests, surgical delays, major adverse cardiac event (MACE), length of hospital stay and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mortality, and costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 898 patients were included in the study, with 487 in Group I and 411 in Group II. The Gupta group reduced the demand for preoperative CC (P<0.001) and preoperative non-invasive diagnostic testing (n = 107, 21.9% vs. n = 36, 8.75%). The time from the anaesthesiology outpatient clinic to surgery was 15 days in Group I and 14 days in Group II (<i>P</i>=0.132). The length of ICU stay was higher in Group I (<i>P</i>=0.019). MACE was 15 patients (3.08%) in Group I and 9 patients (2.19%) in Group II (<i>P</i>=0.076). The cost of patients in Group I was higher than that in Group II (<i>P</i>=0.019).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using Gupta in preoperative evaluation may reduce unnecessary preoperative resource usage, surgical delays, ICU hospitalization rates, additional costs, and mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"51 6","pages":"485-490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10758665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2023.231464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Cardiologists are the most frequently consulted specialists during pre-operative evaluations. However, unnecessary cardiology consultations (CC) can increase cardiologists' workload without impacting anaesthesia practice, resulting in delayed surgeries and additional financial burdens. We hypothesize that using Gupta during the preoperative period can reduce these adverse effects.

Methods: This prospective study included patients scheduled for elective noncardiac, nonvascular surgeries who underwent pre-operative assessment. Patients who had no specific risk index used for preoperative cardiac risk evaluation were classified as Group I, and those evaluated using the Gupta scale were classified as Group II. The study compared preoperative CC, diagnostic tests, surgical delays, major adverse cardiac event (MACE), length of hospital stay and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mortality, and costs.

Results: A total of 898 patients were included in the study, with 487 in Group I and 411 in Group II. The Gupta group reduced the demand for preoperative CC (P<0.001) and preoperative non-invasive diagnostic testing (n = 107, 21.9% vs. n = 36, 8.75%). The time from the anaesthesiology outpatient clinic to surgery was 15 days in Group I and 14 days in Group II (P=0.132). The length of ICU stay was higher in Group I (P=0.019). MACE was 15 patients (3.08%) in Group I and 9 patients (2.19%) in Group II (P=0.076). The cost of patients in Group I was higher than that in Group II (P=0.019).

Conclusion: Using Gupta in preoperative evaluation may reduce unnecessary preoperative resource usage, surgical delays, ICU hospitalization rates, additional costs, and mortality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
古普塔评分对非心脏非血管手术术前心脏病学会诊请求的影响。
目的:心脏病专家是术前评估中最常咨询的专家。然而,不必要的心脏科会诊(CC)会在不影响麻醉实践的情况下增加心脏科医生的工作量,导致手术延迟和额外的经济负担。我们假设在术前使用 Gupta 可以减少这些不利影响:这项前瞻性研究纳入了接受术前评估的择期非心脏、非血管手术患者。术前心脏风险评估未使用特定风险指数的患者被分为 I 组,使用古普塔量表进行评估的患者被分为 II 组。研究比较了术前CC、诊断测试、手术延迟、主要心脏不良事件(MACE)、住院时间和重症监护室(ICU)停留时间、死亡率和费用:研究共纳入 898 名患者,其中第一组 487 人,第二组 411 人。Gupta组减少了术前CC的需求量(PP=0.132)。第一组的重症监护室住院时间较长(P=0.019)。MACE 在 I 组为 15 例(3.08%),II 组为 9 例(2.19%)(P=0.076)。第一组患者的费用高于第二组(P=0.019):结论:在术前评估中使用 Gupta 可以减少不必要的术前资源使用、手术延迟、ICU 住院率、额外费用和死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Study of Magnesium Sulfate, Lignocaine, and Propofol for Attenuating Hemodynamic Response During Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Under General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Anaesthesia Management of A Patient with Airway Obstruction Caused by Prosthetic Vascular Graft Invasion into the Tracheal Lumen. Bispectral Index Guidance Reduced Target Plasma Propofol Concentration During ERCP in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl in Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring Using A Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anaesthesia Regimen in Spine Surgeries. Implementation of ERAS Protocols: In Theory and Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1