Urzua J, Dominguez P, Quiroga M, Moran S, Irarrazaval M, Maturana G, Dubernet J
Anesth Analg. 1981 Sep;60(9):625-8.
In order to determine the usefulness of the preoperative subjective estimation of risk and compare it with preoperative estimation of risk based upon objective data, two groups of patients subjected to open heart surgery at the Catholic University of Chile Hospital were studied prospectively. Group I comprised 227 consecutive patients operated on in 1975 and group II comprised 181 consecutive patients operated on in 1979. There were several important differences in management and techniques between the two groups, which resulted in different factors perioperative mortality. Mortality in group I was related to extreme age subsets (p less than 0.01) and to duration an anoxic arrest (p less than 0.001); mortality in group II correlated only to preoperative functional class (NYHA) (p less than 0.02). Despite these differences, subjective risk estimation as preoperatively recorded by the anesthesiologist was accurate in both groups (r = 0.969, p less than 0.05 in group I and r = 0.998, p less than 0.01 in group II). It was concluded that in the absence of a universally valid objective risk index, subjective risk estimation provides a clinical index as useful as reliance upon presently available objective data.
为了确定术前主观风险评估的效用,并将其与基于客观数据的术前风险评估进行比较,我们对智利天主教大学医院接受心脏直视手术的两组患者进行了前瞻性研究。第一组包括1975年连续接受手术的227例患者,第二组包括1979年连续接受手术的181例患者。两组在管理和技术方面存在几个重要差异,这导致围手术期死亡率的影响因素不同。第一组的死亡率与极高年龄组(p<0.01)和缺氧停搏持续时间(p<0.001)有关;第二组的死亡率仅与术前功能分级(纽约心脏协会)相关(p<0.02)。尽管存在这些差异,但麻醉医生术前记录的主观风险评估在两组中都是准确的(第一组r = 0.969,p<0.05;第二组r = 0.998,p<0.01)。得出的结论是,在缺乏普遍有效的客观风险指数的情况下,主观风险评估提供了一个与依赖现有客观数据同样有用的临床指标。