The evaluation of risk is a fundamental part of the role of the anesthesiologist in the perioperative period. For elective surgery, this evaluation begins with identification of correctable elements of co-morbidity and appropriate intervention to reduce risk and/or improve outcome. Optimum anesthetic care requires a balance between sensitive detection of risk and cost-effective utilization of expensive resources. The preparation of the patient with known cardiovascular disease for noncardiac surgery is an excellent example of this dilemma. Formal risk-stratification has been a regular part of the daily practice of anesthesiology since the 1960s, with the assignment of an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification as a part of every anesthetic administered. Sponsored by the ASA and published by Dripps et al., ASA physical status assignment was designed to predict risk. Subsequent large-scale reviews have shown ASA physical status classifications to correlate with the incidence of major morbidity and mortality, although not in a manner that lends itself to predicting specific cardiac risk, or guiding cardiac testing for elective surgery. The desire to identify a means to predict perioperative cardiac risk has been driven by the observation that adverse cardiac events correlate with certain kinds of surgery, including carotid artery surgery, aortic aneurysm repair, and peripheral revascularization procedures. Recognizing that vascular surgery was highly associated with adverse cardiac events, Hertzer et al. advocated routine cardiac catheterization before vascular surgery, and achieved a very low mortality after major aortic surgery. Subsequent review of this approach revealed normal coronaries in only 8% of more than 1,000 patients scheduled for peripheral vascular surgery, with a significant incidence (14%) with severe correctable coronary artery disease that was not suspected by the clinical history. Coronary angiography led to coronary artery bypass graft procedures in 130 patients in this series who subsequently underwent aortic surgery, with less than 1% mortality. Screening with routine cardiac catheterization did not expand from these studies into a general risk prediction strategy due to the cost and morbidity associated with the procedures. Other approaches have included routine screening with exercise stress testing, dipyridamole-thallium imaging, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Although some data are supportive, routine screening ultimately proves less than ideal for preoperative preparation for large populations of patients due to risk, cost, and logistics. In an attempt to combine patient factors with surgical issues, Goldman et al.