Katz R I, Barnhart J M, Ho G, Hersch D, Dayan S S, Keehn L
Department of Anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Oct;87(4):830-6. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199810000-00016.
Cardiology consultations are often requested by surgeons and anesthesiologists for patients with cardiovascular disease. There can be confusion, however, regarding both the reasons for a consultation and their effect on patient management. This study was designed to determine the attitudes of physicians toward preoperative cardiology consultations and to assess the effect of such consultations on perioperative management. A multiple-choice survey regarding the purposes and utility of cardiology consultations was sent to randomly selected New York metropolitan area anesthesiologists, surgeons, and cardiologists. In addition, the charts of 55 consecutive patients aged >50 yr who received preoperative cardiology consultations were examined to determine the stated purpose of the consult, recommendations made, and concordance by surgeons and anesthesiologists with cardiologists' recommendations. Of the 400 surveys sent to each specialty, 192 were returned from anesthesiologists, 113 were returned from surgeons, and 129 were returned from cardiologists. There was substantial disagreement on the importance and purposes of a cardiology consult: intraoperative monitoring, "clearing the patient for surgery," and advising as to the safest type of anesthesia were regarded as important by most cardiologists and surgeons but as unimportant by anesthesiologists (all P < 0.05). Most surgeons (80.2%) felt obligated to follow a cardiologist's recommendations, whereas few anesthesiologists (16.6%) felt so obligated (P < 0.05). The most commonly stated purpose of the 55 cardiology consultations examined was "preoperative evaluation." Only 5 of these (9%) were obtained for patients in whom there was a new finding. Of the cardiology consultations, 40% contained no recommendations other than "proceed with case," "cleared for surgery," or "continue current medications." Recommendations regarding intraoperative monitoring or cardiac medications were largely ignored.
We conclude that there seems to be considerable disagreement among anesthesiologists, cardiologists, and surgeons as to the purposes and utility of cardiology consultations. A review of 55 consecutive cardiology consultations suggests that most of them give little advice that truly affects management.
外科医生和麻醉医生经常会为患有心血管疾病的患者请求心内科会诊。然而,关于会诊的原因及其对患者管理的影响可能存在混淆。本研究旨在确定医生对术前心内科会诊的态度,并评估此类会诊对围手术期管理的影响。一项关于心内科会诊目的和效用的多项选择题调查被发送给随机挑选的纽约大都市地区的麻醉医生、外科医生和心脏病专家。此外,检查了连续55例年龄大于50岁接受术前心内科会诊患者的病历,以确定会诊的既定目的、提出的建议,以及外科医生和麻醉医生与心脏病专家建议的一致性。在发送给每个专业的400份调查问卷中,麻醉医生返回了192份,外科医生返回了113份,心脏病专家返回了129份。在心内科会诊的重要性和目的方面存在很大分歧:大多数心脏病专家和外科医生认为术中监测、“使患者能接受手术”以及就最安全的麻醉类型提供建议很重要,但麻醉医生认为不重要(所有P<0.05)。大多数外科医生(80.2%)觉得有义务遵循心脏病专家的建议,而很少有麻醉医生(16.6%)有此义务(P<0.05)。所检查的55例心内科会诊中最常提及的目的是“术前评估”。其中只有5例(9%)是针对有新发现的患者进行的。在心内科会诊中,40%除了“继续进行病例”、“可接受手术”或“继续使用当前药物”外没有其他建议。关于术中监测或心脏药物的建议大多被忽视。
我们得出结论,麻醉医生、心脏病专家和外科医生在心内科会诊的目的和效用方面似乎存在相当大的分歧。对连续55例心内科会诊的回顾表明,其中大多数提供的真正影响管理的建议很少。