Objective: To evaluate the discriminatory value and compare the predictive performance of six noninvasive tests used for perioperative cardiac risk stratification in patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Design: Meta-analysis of published reports. Methods: Eight studies on ambulatory electrocardiography, seven on exercise electrocardiography, eight on radionuclide ventriculography, 23 on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, eight on dobutamine stress echocardiography, and four on dipyridamole stress echocardiography were selected, using a systematic review of published reports on preoperative non-invasive tests from the Medline database (January 1975 and April 2001). Random effects models were used to calculate weighted sensitivity and specificity from the published results. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of each test. The relative diagnostic odds ratio was used to study the differences in diagnostic performance of the tests. Results: In all, 8119 patients participated in the studies selected. Dobutamine stress echocardiography had the highest weighted sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74% to 97%) and a reasonable specificity of 70% (95% CI 62% to 79%) for predicting perioperative cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. On SROC analysis, there was a trend for dobutamine stress echocardiography to perform better than the other tests, but this only reached significance against myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (relative diagnostic odds ratio 5.5, 95% CI 2.0 to 14.9). Conclusions: On meta-analysis of six non-invasive tests, dobutamine stress echocardiography showed a positive trend towards better diagnostic performance than the other tests, but this was only significant in the comparison with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. However, dobutamine stress echocardiography may be the favoured test in situations where there is valvar or left ventricular dysfunction. P atients undergoing major vascular surgery are at increased risk for cardiovascular complications such as cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction because of underlying coronary artery disease.
Background: Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) and MAC-awake decrease with age. We hypothesised that, in clinical practice, (i) end-tidal MAC fraction in older patients would decline by less than the predicted age-dependent MAC decrease (i.e. older patients would receive relatively excessive anaesthetic concentrations), and (ii) bispectral index (BIS) values would therefore be lower in older patients. Methods: We examined the relationship between end-tidal MAC fraction, BIS values, and age in 4699 patients > 30 yr in age at a single centre using unadjusted local regression (locally estimated scatterplot smoothing), Spearman's correlation, stratification, and robust univariable and multivariable linear regression. Results: The end-tidal MAC fraction in older patients declined by 3.01% per decade (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.56e3.45; P<0.001), less than the 6.47% MAC decrease per decade that we found in a meta-regression analysis of published studies of age-dependent changes in MAC (P<0.001), and less than the age-dependent decrease in MAC-awake. The BIS values correlated positively with age (r¼0.15; 95% CI: 0.12e0.17; P<0.001), and inversely with the age-adjusted endtidal MAC (aaMAC) fraction (r¼ e0.13; 95% CI: e0.16, e0.11; P<0.001). Conclusions: The age-dependent decline in end-tidal MAC fraction delivered in clinical practice at our institution was less than the age-dependent percentage decrease in MAC and MAC-awake determined from published studies. Despite receiving higher aaMAC fractions, older patients paradoxically showed higher BIS values. This most likely suggests that the BIS algorithm is inaccurate in older adults.
Fig 1.Meta-regression of the effect of age on minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) from all published MAC data in individuals of various ages from Table 1, including all those reviewed by Mapleson and all additional MAC studies since 1996.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.