Lamperti Massimo, Romero Carolina S, Guarracino Fabio, Cammarota Gianmaria, Vetrugno Luigi, Tufegdzic Boris, Lozsan Francisco, Macias Frias Juan Jose, Duma Andreas, Bock Matthias, Ruetzler Kurt, Mulero Silvia, Reuter Daniel A, La Via Luigi, Rauch Simon, Sorbello Massimiliano, Afshari Arash
From the Anesthesiology Division, Integrated Hospital Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (ML, BT, SM), Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University General Hospital of Valencia (CSR). Department of Methodology, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Spain (CSR), Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Cardiothoracic and vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Pisa (FG), Department of Translational Medicine, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale, Novara (GC), Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy (LV), Péterfy Sándor Hospital, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit. Budapest, Hungary (FL), Servei d'Anestesiologia i Medicina Periopeatòria, Hospital General de Granollers, Spain (JJMF), Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Tulln, Austria (AD), Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital of Merano (SABES-ASDAA), Merano - Meran, Italy (MB), Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University and Department of Anaesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria (MB), the Outcomes Research Consortium, Department of Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA (KR), Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany (DAR), Anesthesia and Intensive Care. Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", Catania, Italy (LLV), Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital of Merano (SABES-ASDAA), Merano - Meran (SR), Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University, Anesthesia and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Kore University, Enna (SR), Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Giovanni Paolo II Hospital, Ragusa, Italy (SR), Rigshospitalet & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen (MS) and Department of Paediatric and Obstetric Anaesthesia, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Denmark University of Copenhagen, Denmark (AA).
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025 Jan 1;42(1):1-35. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002069. Epub 2024 Nov 2.
BACKGROUND: When considering whether a patient is fit for surgery, a comprehensive patient assessment represents the first step for an anaesthetist to evaluate the risks associated with the procedure and the patient's underlying diseases, and to optimise (whenever possible) the perioperative surgical journey. These guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (ESAIC) update previous guidelines to provide new evidence on existing and emerging topics that consider the different aspects of the patient's surgical path. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature review focused on organisation, clinical facets, optimisation and planning. The methodological quality of the studies included was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. A Delphi process agreed on the wording of recommendations, and clinical practice statements (CPS) supported by minimal evidence. A draft version of the guidelines was published on the ESAIC website for 4 weeks, and the link was distributed to all ESAIC members, both individual and national, encompassing most European national anaesthesia societies. Feedback was gathered and incorporated into the guidelines accordingly. Following the finalisation of the draft, the Guidelines Committee and ESAIC Board officially approved the guidelines. RESULTS: In the first phase of the guidelines update, 17 668 titles were initially identified. After removing duplicates and restricting the search period from 1 January 2018 to 3 May 2023, the number of titles was reduced to 16 774, which were then screened, yielding 414 abstracts. Among these, 267 relevant abstracts were identified from which 204 appropriate titles were selected for a comprehensive GRADE analysis. Additionally, the study considered 4 reviews, 16 meta-analyses, 9 previously published guidelines, 58 prospective cohort studies and 83 retrospective studies. The guideline provides 55 evidence-based recommendations that were voted on by a Delphi process, reaching a solid consensus (>90% agreement). DISCUSSION: This update of the previous guidelines has covered new organisational and clinical aspects of the preoperative anaesthesia assessment to provide a more objective evaluation of patients with a high risk of postoperative complications requiring intensive care. Telemedicine and more predictive preoperative scores and biomarkers should guide the anaesthetist in selecting the appropriate preoperative blood tests, x-rays, and so forth for each patient, allowing the anaesthetist to assess the risks and suggest the most appropriate anaesthetic plan. CONCLUSION: Each patient should have a tailored assessment of their fitness to undergo procedures requiring the involvement of an anaesthetist. The anaesthetist's role is essential in this phase to obtain a broad vision of the patient's clinical conditions, to coordinate care and to help the patient reach an informed decision.
背景:在考虑患者是否适合手术时,全面的患者评估是麻醉医生评估手术相关风险和患者基础疾病的第一步,也是(尽可能)优化围手术期手术流程的第一步。欧洲麻醉学和重症监护医学学会(ESAIC)的这些指南更新了先前的指南,以提供有关现有和新出现主题的新证据,这些主题涉及患者手术路径的不同方面。 设计:一项全面的文献综述,重点关注组织、临床方面、优化和规划。使用GRADE(推荐分级、评估、制定和评价)方法评估纳入研究的方法学质量。通过德尔菲法确定了推荐意见的措辞以及证据最少的临床实践声明(CPS)。指南的草案版本在ESAIC网站上发布了4周,链接分发给了所有ESAIC成员,包括个人成员和国家成员,其中涵盖了大多数欧洲国家麻醉学会。收集了反馈意见并相应纳入指南。在草案最终确定后,指南委员会和ESAIC董事会正式批准了该指南。 结果:在指南更新的第一阶段,最初识别出17668个标题。在去除重复项并将搜索期从2018年1月1日限制到2023年5月3日之后,标题数量减少到16774个,然后进行筛选,得到414篇摘要。其中,识别出267篇相关摘要,从中选择了204篇合适的标题进行全面的GRADE分析。此外,该研究还考虑了4篇综述、16篇荟萃分析、9篇先前发表的指南、58篇前瞻性队列研究和83篇回顾性研究。该指南提供了55条基于证据的推荐意见,这些意见通过德尔菲法进行投票,达成了坚实的共识(>90%的一致意见)。 讨论:此次对先前指南的更新涵盖了术前麻醉评估的新组织和临床方面,以便对需要重症监护的术后并发症高风险患者进行更客观的评估。远程医疗以及更具预测性的术前评分和生物标志物应指导麻醉医生为每位患者选择合适的术前血液检查、X光检查等,使麻醉医生能够评估风险并提出最合适的麻醉方案。 结论:每位患者都应针对其接受需要麻醉医生参与的手术的适合程度进行量身定制的评估。在这一阶段,麻醉医生的作用至关重要,以便全面了解患者的临床状况、协调护理并帮助患者做出明智的决定。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013-6
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Anaesthesiologie. 2025-8-28
Br J Surg. 2025-7-3
J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2025-6-30
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2025-7