MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915803345 · doi:10.14740/cr821

Preoperative Cardiac Stress Tests Ordered in the Preoperative Evaluation Clinic: A Retrospective Review of Ordering Patterns

2019· review· en· W2915803345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam S. Weinstein, Angela M. Bader, Richard D. Urman, David L. Hepner, John A. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStress testing (software)Cardiac surgeryLeft bundle branch blockCardiologyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyTest (biology)Heart failurePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of anesthesiologists has expanded from operating rooms to preoperative evaluation clinics. This role involves performing preoperative cardiovascular evaluation and optimization of patients before elective surgery, which can include ordering cardiac stress tests. We aimed to study the ordering patterns by anesthesiologists for preoperative cardiac stress tests, focusing on whether societal and institutional guidelines and recommendations were used. Choice of type of cardiac stress test was also examined. METHODS: A single center retrospective chart review from December 1, 2005 to May 31, 2015 was performed on 492 patients who had a cardiac stress test ordered by an anesthesiologist. Patients were categorized by indication for ordering the cardiac stress test based on societal practice guidelines, institutional guidelines or other relevant reasons at the time of patient encounter. Those "other" category cardiac stress tests were assessed for indication and evaluated by physician peer review to see if there was peer agreement for being appropriately ordered. Exercise electrocardiography (ECG) cardiac stress tests ordered were evaluated for appropriateness based on baseline resting ECG findings. Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right ventricular (RV) pacing were evaluated for appropriateness of proper cardiac stress test modality based on whether a pharmacological vasodilator cardiac stress test was ordered. RESULTS: Analysis of the cardiac stress tests ordered showed that 43% were ordered according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, 29% were ordered according to institutional guidelines, and 28% were categorized as "other". Of the 28% "other" cardiac stress tests, 53% were in agreement for ordering by peer review. Sixty-four exercise ECG cardiac stress tests were ordered, of which 58% were appropriate based on having no baseline resting ECG abnormalities. Fifty-one patients were identified as having a resting ECG of LBBB or RV pacing of which 41% had an appropriate pharmacological vasodilator cardiac stress tests ordered. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists order most preoperative cardiac stress tests according to professional societal or institutional guidelines (72%), yet they are not always choosing the best modality of cardiac stress test. A significant portion of cardiac stress tests are ordered (28%) based on clinical judgment, likely due to the lack of guidelines and recommendations being all-encompassing on many commonly encountered preoperative patient situations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207