A simple classification of the risk in cardiac surgery

53Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A new risk classification for patients undergoing cardiac surgery has been used for the last two years by the anaesthesiologists of the Montreal Heart Institute. The following factors known to be associated with a greater operative morbidity and mortality were selected: (1) poor left ventricular function, (2) congestive heart failure, (3) unstable angina or recent (less than 6 weeks) myocardial infarction, (4) age over 65 years, (5) severe obesity (Body Mass Index > 30), (6) reoperation, (7) emergency surgery, (8) other significant or uncontrolled systemic disturbances. Patients with none of the above factors were classified as normal risks; those presenting with one of those selected factors were classified as increased risks, and those with more than one factor were said to carry a high risk. In a prospective study of 500 consecutive open-heart surgery patients classified according to this method, we found that the operated population at normal risk (50 per cent of cases) had a mortality of 0.4 per cent, the patient group with increased risk (32 per cent of cases) had a mortality of 3.1 per cent, and the high risk group (18 per cent of cases) had a 12.2 per cent mortality. Furthermore, 50 deaths following open-heart surgery were assessed retrospectively using the classification; 58 per cent of these patients were classified as high risk, 34 per cent had an increased risk, and only eight per cent were found to be in the normal risk group. Thus, this new risk classification has proven to be a reliable and useful tool for preoperative assessment of patients undergoing open-heart surgery and for teaching purposes. © 1983 Canadian Anesthesiologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Paiement, B., Pelletier, C., Dyrda, I., Maillé, J. G., Boulanger, M., Taillefer, J., … Dupont, E. (1983). A simple classification of the risk in cardiac surgery. Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal, 30(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03007718

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free