Heart failure diagnostic accuracy, intraoperative fluid management, and postoperative acute kidney injury: a single-centre prospective observational study.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.020
Michael R Mathis, Kamrouz Ghadimi, Andrew Benner, Elizabeth S Jewell, Allison M Janda, Hyeon Joo, Michael D Maile, Jessica R Golbus, Keith D Aaronson, Milo C Engoren
{"title":"Heart failure diagnostic accuracy, intraoperative fluid management, and postoperative acute kidney injury: a single-centre prospective observational study.","authors":"Michael R Mathis, Kamrouz Ghadimi, Andrew Benner, Elizabeth S Jewell, Allison M Janda, Hyeon Joo, Michael D Maile, Jessica R Golbus, Keith D Aaronson, Milo C Engoren","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The accurate diagnosis of heart failure (HF) before major noncardiac surgery is frequently challenging. The impact of diagnostic accuracy for HF on intraoperative practice patterns and clinical outcomes remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an observational study of adult patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery at an academic hospital from 2015 to 2019. A preoperative clinical diagnosis of HF was defined by keywords in the preoperative assessment or a diagnosis code. Medical records of patients with and without HF clinical diagnoses were reviewed by a multispecialty panel of physician experts to develop an adjudicated HF reference standard. The exposure of interest was an adjudicated diagnosis of heart failure. The primary outcome was volume of intraoperative fluid administered. The secondary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 40 659 surgeries, a stratified subsample of 1018 patients were reviewed by a physician panel. Among patients with adjudicated diagnoses of HF, those without a clinical diagnosis (false negatives) more commonly had preserved left ventricular ejection fractions and fewer comorbidities. Compared with false negatives, an accurate diagnosis of HF (true positives) was associated with 470 ml (95% confidence interval: 120-830; P=0.009) lower intraoperative fluid administration and lower risk of AKI (adjusted odds ratio:0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.89). For patients without adjudicated diagnoses of HF, non-HF was not associated with differences in either fluids administered or AKI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An accurate preoperative diagnosis of heart failure before noncardiac surgery is associated with reduced intraoperative fluid administration and less acute kidney injury. Targeted efforts to improve preoperative diagnostic accuracy for heart failure may improve perioperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The accurate diagnosis of heart failure (HF) before major noncardiac surgery is frequently challenging. The impact of diagnostic accuracy for HF on intraoperative practice patterns and clinical outcomes remains unknown.

Methods: We performed an observational study of adult patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery at an academic hospital from 2015 to 2019. A preoperative clinical diagnosis of HF was defined by keywords in the preoperative assessment or a diagnosis code. Medical records of patients with and without HF clinical diagnoses were reviewed by a multispecialty panel of physician experts to develop an adjudicated HF reference standard. The exposure of interest was an adjudicated diagnosis of heart failure. The primary outcome was volume of intraoperative fluid administered. The secondary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI).

Results: From 40 659 surgeries, a stratified subsample of 1018 patients were reviewed by a physician panel. Among patients with adjudicated diagnoses of HF, those without a clinical diagnosis (false negatives) more commonly had preserved left ventricular ejection fractions and fewer comorbidities. Compared with false negatives, an accurate diagnosis of HF (true positives) was associated with 470 ml (95% confidence interval: 120-830; P=0.009) lower intraoperative fluid administration and lower risk of AKI (adjusted odds ratio:0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.89). For patients without adjudicated diagnoses of HF, non-HF was not associated with differences in either fluids administered or AKI.

Conclusions: An accurate preoperative diagnosis of heart failure before noncardiac surgery is associated with reduced intraoperative fluid administration and less acute kidney injury. Targeted efforts to improve preoperative diagnostic accuracy for heart failure may improve perioperative outcomes.

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
心力衰竭诊断准确性、术中液体管理和术后急性肾损伤:一项单中心前瞻性观察研究。
背景:在大型非心脏手术前准确诊断心力衰竭(HF)往往具有挑战性。心衰诊断准确性对术中操作模式和临床结果的影响仍是未知数:我们对 2015 年至 2019 年在一家学术医院接受重大非心脏手术的成年患者进行了一项观察性研究。术前心房颤动的临床诊断由术前评估中的关键词或诊断代码定义。由多专科医师组成的专家小组对有和没有心房颤动临床诊断的患者的医疗记录进行了审查,以制定一个裁定的心房颤动参考标准。心力衰竭的裁定诊断是受关注的风险敞口。主要结果是术中输液量。次要结果是术后急性肾损伤(AKI):医生小组对 40 659 例手术中的 1018 例患者进行了分层抽样。在裁定诊断为心房颤动的患者中,没有临床诊断的患者(假阴性)通常左心室射血分数保持不变,合并症较少。与假阴性患者相比,准确诊断出心房颤动(真阳性)的患者术中输液量减少 470 毫升(95% 置信区间:120-830;P=0.009),发生 AKI 的风险降低(调整后的几率比:0.39,95% 置信区间:0.18-0.89)。对于未确诊为心房颤动的患者,非心房颤动与输液量或 AKI 的差异无关:结论:在非心脏手术前准确诊断出心衰与减少术中输液和急性肾损伤有关。有针对性地提高心衰术前诊断的准确性可改善围手术期的预后。
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
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
A resuscitation tool for major obstetric haemorrhage: a nomogram that expresses quantitative blood loss relative to effective circulating blood volume. Balanced electrolyte solution with 1% glucose as intraoperative maintenance fluid in infants: a prospective study of glucose, electrolyte, and acid-base homeostasis. It is time to take a broader equity lens to highlight health inequalities in people with pain. The role of wearable technology in home-based prehabilitation: a scoping review. Corrigendum to "Effect of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol, and sevoflurane on sleep homeostasis in rats" [Br J Anaesth 132 (2024) 1248-1259].
×
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