ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2018
Perioperative care of cardiac patient's candidate for non-cardiac surgery: a critical appraisal of emergent evidence and international guidelines.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Preoperative Basal Inflammatory State, Measured by Plasma suPAR Levels, with Intraoperative Sublingual Microvascular Perfusion in Patients Undergoing Major Non-Cardiac Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Which preoperative screening tool should be applied to older patients undergoing elective surgery to predict short-term postoperative outcomes? Lessons from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The perioperative management of a cardiac-patient candidate to non-cardiac surgery (NCS) remains a topic of considerable debate. In recent years, the overall tendency from professional societies has been to delineate how to identify and manage high-risk patients following the best evidence. However, significant concerns persist, especially in the care of intermediate-risk patients (also labeled at "acceptable" risk), who may not fit into the categories of "completely healthy" or "critically ill", but that might still encounter dramatic (and unexpected) perioperative events. The specific interest and main goal of this expert viewpoint pertains to the care of cardiac patients scheduled for NCS, addressing central questions of real-life clinical care that practicing anesthesiologists and cardiologists face daily, discussing recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESC/ESA), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines. The viewpoint aims to discuss few of the important topics pertaining perioperative assessment and management: type of NCS and perioperative cardiac events, risk prediction including testing, and perioperative management of cardiac therapy. The fact that cardiac adverse events have reduced in number mostly due to better preoperative management and prevention should not prompt a reduction in clinical evaluations. While debate remains pertaining the most appropriate way to evaluate patients for NCS within international societies, a comprehensive approach-evaluation best recognized to assess functional and heart status, should be maintained, keeping into consideration the surgical procedure and global health management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.