Original Article

ASA Physical Status Determination by General Internists and Impact on Cardiac Risk Assessment

Authors: Kevin R. Riggs, MD, MPH, Terrance Shaneyfelt, MD, MPH, Andrea L. Cherrington, MD, MPH, Jeffrey W. Simmons, MD, MSHQS, Fadi G. Hage, MD, Melanie S. Morris, MD, Stefan G. Kertesz, MD, MSc, Joshua S. Richman, MD, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: Estimating cardiac risk is important for preoperative evaluation, and several risk calculators incorporate the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. The purpose of this study was to determine the concordance of ASA scores assigned by general internists and anesthesiologists and assess whether discrepancies affected cardiac risk estimation.

Methods: This observational study included military veterans evaluated in a preoperative evaluation clinic at a single center during a 12-month period. ASA scores were recorded by General Internal Medicine residents under the supervision of a General Internal Medicine attending, performing a preoperative medical consultation, and were compared with ASA scores assigned by an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery. ASA scores and Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores incorporating each ASA score were compared.

Results: Data were collected on 206 patients, 163 of whom had surgery within 90 days and were included. ASA scores were concordant in 60 patients (37.3%), whereas the ASA scores were rated lower by the general internist in 101 (62.0%) and higher in 2 (1.2%). Interrater reliability was low (κ = 0.08), and general internist scores were significantly lower than anesthesiologist scores (P < 0.01). Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores were calculated for 160 patients, and they exceeded 1% in 14 patients using the anesthesiologist ASA score, compared with 5 patients using the general internist score.

Conclusions: ASA scores assigned by general internists in this study were significantly lower than those assigned by anesthesiologists, and these discrepancies in the ASA score can lead to substantially different conclusions about cardiac risk.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Saklad MDM. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 1941;2:281–284.
 
2. Mayhew D, Mendonca V, Murthy BVS. A review of ASA physical status— historical perspectives and modern developments. Anaesthesia 2019;74: 373–379.
 
3. Moonesinghe SR, Mythen MG, Das P, et al. Risk stratification tools for predicting morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing major surgery: qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology 2013;119:959–981.
 
4. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stützer H, et al. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 1996;77: 217–222.
 
5. Hackett NJ, De Oliveira GS, Jain UK, et al. ASA class is a reliable independent predictor of medical complications and mortality following surgery. Int J Surg 2015;18:184–190.
 
6. Donati A, Ruzzi M, Adrario E, et al. A new and feasible model for predicting operative risk. Br J Anaesth 2004;93:393–399.
 
7. Mangano DT, Browner WS, Hollenberg M, et al. Association of perioperative myocardial ischemia with cardiac morbidity and mortality in men undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1781–1788.
 
8. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:833–842. e1-3.
 
9. Gupta PK, Gupta H, Sundaram A, et al. Development and validation of a risk calculator for prediction of cardiac risk after surgery. Circulation 2011;124: 381–387.
 
10. Fleisher LA, Fleischmann KE, Auerbach AD, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:e77–e137.
 
11. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL, Jr. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239–243.
 
12. Haynes SR, Lawler PG. An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia 1995;50:195–199.
 
13. Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, et al. Adding examples to the ASA-Physical Status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology 2017;126:614–622.
 
14. Sweitzer B. Three wise men ( 2) and the ASA-Physical Status classification system. Anesthesiology 2017;126:577–578.
 
15. Knuf KM, Maani CV, Cummings AK. Clinical agreement in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification. Perioper Med (Lond) 2018;7:14.
 
16. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213–220.
 
17. Bowker AH. A test for symmetry in contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc 1948;43:572–574.
 
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
 
19. Parenti N, Reggiani MLB, Percudani D, et al. Reliability of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth 2016;60:208–214.
 
20. Ringdal KG, Skaga NO, Steen PA, et al. Classification of comorbidity in trauma: the reliability of pre-injury ASA physical status classification. Injury 2013;44:29–35.
 
21. Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, et al. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth 2014;113:424–432.
 
22. Ferschl Marla B, Tung A, Sweitzer B, et al. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology 2005;103: 855–859.
 
23. Nelson SE, Li G, Shi H, et al. The impact of reduction of testing at a preoperative evaluation clinic for elective cases: value added without adverse outcomes. J Clin Anesth 2019;55:92–99.
 
24. Duceppe E, Parlow J, MacDonald P, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines on perioperative cardiac risk assessment and management for patients who undergo noncardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:17–32.
 
25. Ford MK, Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN. Systematic review: prediction of perioperative cardiac complications and mortality by the revised cardiac risk index. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:26–35.
 
26. Cohn SL, Fernandez Ros N. Comparison of 4 cardiac risk calculators in predicting postoperative cardiac complications after noncardiac operations. Am J Cardiol 2018;121:125–130.