Search

Background: Cardiovascular complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, with adverse cardiac outcomes estimated to occur in approximately 4% of all patients. Anti-platelet therapy withdrawal may precede up to 10% of acute cardiovascular syndromes, with withdrawal in the peri-operative setting incompletely appraised., Objectives: The aims of our study were to determine the proportion of patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery currently prescribed anti-platelet therapy, and identify current practice in peri-operative management. In addition, the relationship between management of anti-platelet therapy and peri-operative cardiac risk was assessed., Methods: We evaluated consecutive patients attending elective non-cardiac surgery at a major tertiary referral centre. Clinical and biochemical data were collected and analysed on patients currently prescribed anti-platelet therapy. Peri-operative management of anti-platelet therapy was compared with estimated peri-operative cardiac risk., Results: Included were 2950 consecutive patients, with 516 (17%) prescribed anti-platelet therapy, primarily for ischaemic heart disease. Two hundred and eighty nine (56%) patients had all anti-platelet therapy ceased in the peri-operative period, including 49% of patients with ischaemic heart disease and 46% of patients with previous coronary stenting. Peri-operative cardiac risk score did not influence anti-platelet therapy management., Conclusions: Approximately 17% of patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery are prescribed anti-platelet therapy, the predominant indication being for ischaemic heart disease. Almost half of all patients with previous coronary stenting had no anti-platelet therapy during the peri-operative period. The decision to cease anti-platelet therapy, which occurred commonly, did not appear to be guided by peri-operative cardiac risk stratification., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Registries are becoming an increasingly important component of clinical practice through the collection of clinical data including outcomes on representative populations of patients. An understanding of registry structure and function is important for practicing cardiovascular clinicians. Clinical populations may be identified on the basis of procedures they undergo (procedural registries), or their clinical condition (disease registries). Registries provide opportunities to document and improve quality of care. They also provide insights into the nature of disease and the benefit of treatments in subgroups of patients, and poorly resourced environments, that are not well represented in randomized clinical trials., Recent Findings: To maximize the value of registries, minimum quality criteria must be met. These include clear definitions of the included populations, an unbiased inclusive patient sampling strategy, high quality data with processes to ensure this, a clear governance structure, and adherence to relevant ethical and privacy guidelines. Statistical techniques adjusting for the nonrandomized nature of treatment allocations continue to evolve. There is increasing potential for randomized controlled trials to be conducted within registry cohorts. By using the same clinical data for both the registry and the trial, and enrolling unselected patients, this cost-effective approach provides information on the effectiveness of care in the pragmatic clinical environment., Summary: The potential of these rich clinical data sources is yet to be realized. Future developments that will enhance their value include improved efficiencies by integration with the electronic medical record, more widespread crosstalk between high quality registries facilitated by data linkage, simplification of ethical processes, and development of sustainable funding models.