Risk Assessment in Surgical Patients: American Society of Anesthesiologist’s (ASA) Classification vs Intraoperative Therapeutic and Diagnostic Interventions (I-ITS)

Banu Cevik^1, and Yucel Yuce¹

¹University of Health Sciences Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Education and Research Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul, Turkey

Cite this paper

Banu Cevik and Yucel Yuce. Risk Assessment in Surgical Patients: American Society of Anesthesiologist’s (ASA) Classification vs Intraoperative Therapeutic and Diagnostic Interventions (I-ITS). American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2018; 6(1):15-19. doi: 10.12691/AJCMR-6-1-4

Abstract

Background: In this prospective study of 859 surgical patients in a tertiary research hospital, we examined the association between ASA physical status classification and Intraoperative Therapeutic Intervention Score (I-TIS). Methodology: All patients were assigned by ASA classification before the operation and received a value of 1-4 points for I-TIS score during surgical procedures. Surgical complexity was also classified and correlation with I-TIS was examined. Results: The correlation coefficient of the ASA with I-TIS was r=0.55 (p<0.01). The correlation between the surgical complexity was r=0.66 (p<0.001). Five patients (ASA IV) with I-TIS score>25 and surgical complexity of major plus were admitted to the intensive care unit. Two of them were followed up six hours and the other three stayed more than 24 hours in the intensive care unit. Conclusions: It’s concluded that I-TIS score may be validated for our surgical patients but this assessment may show variability among institutions. The ASA classification is the most valued and widely used scoring system for evaluation of perioperative risk in surgical patients. It is simple, easy and also a useful tool to assist descriptions of workload and ‘anesthetic risk’ for analysis and research purposes.

Keywords

operative, surgery, anesthesia, scoring system

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 1941; 2: 281-4.
[2]	Dripps RD. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963; 24: 111.
[3]	Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 1991; 78(3): 355-60.
[4]	Klein N, Weissman C. Evaluating intraoperative therapeutic and diagnostic interventions. Anesth Analg 2002; 95 (5): 1373-80.
[5]	Keene AR, Cullen DJ. Therapeutic intervention scoring system: update 1983. Crit Care Med 1983; 11(1):1-3.
[6]	Spiegelhalter DJ, Aylin P, Best NG, Evans SJW, Murray GD. Commissioned analysis of surgical performance by using routine data: lessons from Bristol inquiry. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 2002; 165(2): 191-221.
[7]	Hofer J, Chung E, Sweitzer BJ. Preanesthesia evaluation for ambulatory surgery: do we make a difference? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2013; 26(6):669-76.
[8]	Cullen KA, Hall MJ, Golosinskiy A. Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006. Natl Health Stat Report 2009; 28(11):1-25.
[9]	Cardiac risk assessment. Br Med J. Best Practice. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/954.html. [Accessed 25 February 2018].
[10]	Barnett S, Moonesinghe SR. Clinical risk scores to guide perioperative management. Postgrad Med J 2011; 87 (1030): 535-541.
[11]	Junger A, Engel J, Quinzio L, Banzhaf A, Jost A, Hempelmann G. Risk predictors, scoring systems and prognostic models in anesthesia and intensive care. Part I: anesthesia. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2002; 37(9): 520-7.
[12]	Ranta S, Hynynen M, Tammisto T. A survey of the ASA physical status classification: significant variation in allocation among Finnish anaesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41(5): 629-32.
[13]	Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schröder T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77 (2): 217-22.
[14]	Weissman C, Klein N. Pre-operative evaluation using therapeutic intensity scoring. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28 (1): 20-28.
[15]	Neugebauer EAM, Lefering R. Severity scores in surgery: what for and needs them? Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 2002; 387 (1): 55-58.
[16]	Al-Homoud s, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Smith JJ, Thompson MD, Darzi AW, Stamatakis JD, Tekkis PP. Evaluating operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: ASA and POSSUM-based predictive models. Surg Oncol 2004; 13(2-3): 83-92.
[17]	Marx GF, Mateo CV, Orkin LR. Computer analysis of postanesthetic death. Anesthesiology 1973; 39: 54-58.
[18]	Feigal DW, Blaisdell FW, The estimation of surgical risk. Med Clin North Am 1979; 63:1131-43.
[19]	Wolters U, Wolf T, Stützer H, Schröder T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth. 1996 Aug; 77(2): 217-22.
[20]	Donati A, Ruzzi M, Adrario E et al. A new and feasible model for predicting operative risk. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93: 393-9.
[21]	Sagar PM, Hartley MN, Mancey-Jones B, Sedman PC, May J, Macfie J. Comparative audit of colorectal resection with the POSSUM scoring system. Br J Surg 1994; 81(10): 1217-20.
[22]	Midwinter MJ, Tytherleigh M, Ashley S. Estimation of mortality and mortality risk in vascular surgery using POSSUM and the Portsmouth predictor equation. Br J Surg 1999; 86(4): 471-4.
[23]	Yii MK, Ng KJ. Risk-adjusted surgical audit with the POSSUM scoring system in a developing country. Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 110-3.