Simone Gurlit1, Henriette Möllmann2. 1. Abteilung für perioperative Altersmedizin, Klinik für Anästhesie und operative Intensivmedizin, St. Franziskus-Hospital Münster, Hohenzollernring 70, 48145, Münster, Deutschland. Simone.gurlit@sfh-muenster.de. 2. St. Franziskus-Hospital Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As more aged patients are surgically treated in hospitals without specialized geriatric care, patients at risk for perioperative complications must be identified and treatment must be adapted. The aim was the use of the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) as a screening tool for the identification of high-risk patients, who need specialized perioperative care. The study presented investigated the use of ISAR screening not only as recommended in the emergency room but also in validation tests as a new option in elective surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Routine data recorded during inpatient admission of 389 patients were evaluated retrospectively. The ISAR as well as a cognitive screening with the mini mental state examination (MMSE) were conducted in patients as long as a previously diagnosed dementia was not present. Delirium was recorded using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). A total of 88 patients from trauma surgery served as an example for emergency surgery and 93 patients from orthopedics for elective surgery. All patients received treatment by the department of Anesthetic and Perioperative Geriatric Care. RESULTS: According to an ISAR score of ≥2 points, 85.2% of traumatology and 48.4% of elective orthopedic patients were considered to be geriatric high-risk patients. Among ISAR negative patients many suffered from preoperative cognitive decline (MMST or diagnosed dementia), especially in the elective orthopedics group. Delirium occurred in 5.7% of trauma surgery patients and in 4.3% of elective orthopedic patients. CONCLUSION: With 2 as a cut-off, the use of ISAR as a screening tool was only conditionally suitable. In particular, the expected filter function was not fulfilled in both groups.
BACKGROUND: As more aged patients are surgically treated in hospitals without specialized geriatric care, patients at risk for perioperative complications must be identified and treatment must be adapted. The aim was the use of the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) as a screening tool for the identification of high-risk patients, who need specialized perioperative care. The study presented investigated the use of ISAR screening not only as recommended in the emergency room but also in validation tests as a new option in elective surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Routine data recorded during inpatient admission of 389 patients were evaluated retrospectively. The ISAR as well as a cognitive screening with the mini mental state examination (MMSE) were conducted in patients as long as a previously diagnosed dementia was not present. Delirium was recorded using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). A total of 88 patients from trauma surgery served as an example for emergency surgery and 93 patients from orthopedics for elective surgery. All patients received treatment by the department of Anesthetic and Perioperative Geriatric Care. RESULTS: According to an ISAR score of ≥2 points, 85.2% of traumatology and 48.4% of elective orthopedic patients were considered to be geriatric high-risk patients. Among ISAR negative patients many suffered from preoperative cognitive decline (MMST or diagnosed dementia), especially in the elective orthopedics group. Delirium occurred in 5.7% of trauma surgery patients and in 4.3% of elective orthopedic patients. CONCLUSION: With 2 as a cut-off, the use of ISAR as a screening tool was only conditionally suitable. In particular, the expected filter function was not fulfilled in both groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Elective surgical procedure; Emergency medicine; Perioperative complications; Predictive value of tests; Risk identification
Authors: Bianca M Buurman; Wendy van den Berg; Johanna C Korevaar; Koen Milisen; Rob J de Haan; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: Eur J Emerg Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.799
Authors: Timothy R Chapman; Ruth M Barrientos; Jared T Ahrendsen; Steven F Maier; Susan L Patterson Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Judi Edmans; Lucy Bradshaw; John R F Gladman; Matthew Franklin; Vladislav Berdunov; Rachel Elliott; Simon P Conroy Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 10.668