NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Benefits and Harms of Routine Preoperative Testing: Comparative Effectiveness
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 130
Investigators: Ethan M Balk, MD, MPH, Amy Earley, BS, Nira Hadar, MS, Nirav Shah, MD, and Thomas A Trikalinos, MD, PhD.
Author Information and AffiliationsStructured Abstract
Objectives:
Preoperative testing is used to guide the action plan for patients undergoing surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia and to predict potential postoperative complications. There is uncertainty whether routine or per-protocol testing in the absence of a specific indication prevents complications and improves outcomes, or whether it causes unnecessary delays, costs, and harms due to false-positive results.
Data sources:
We searched MEDLINE® and Ovid Healthstar® (from inception to July 22, 2013), as well as Cochrane Central Trials Registry and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Review methods:
We included comparative and cohort studies of both adults and children undergoing surgical and other procedures requiring either anesthesia or sedation (excluding local anesthesia). We included all preoperative tests that were likely to be conducted routinely (in all patients) or on a per-protocol basis (in selected patients). For comparative studies, the comparator of interest was either no testing or ad hoc testing done at the discretion of the clinician. We also looked for studies that compared routine and per-protocol testing. The outcomes of interest were mortality, perioperative events, complications, patient satisfaction, resource utilization, and harms related to testing.
Results:
Fifty-seven studies (14 comparative and 43 cohort) met inclusion criteria for the review. Well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cataract surgeries suggested that routine testing with electrocardiography, complete blood count, and/or a basic metabolic panel did not affect procedure cancellations (2 RCTs, relative risks [RRs] of 1.00 or 0.97), and there was no clinically important difference for total complications (3 RCTs, RR = 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.14). Two RCTs and six nonrandomized comparative studies of general elective surgeries in adults varied greatly in the surgeries and patients included, along with the routine or per-protocol tests used. They also mostly had high risk of bias due to lack of adjustment for patient and clinician factors, making their results unreliable. Therefore, they yielded insufficient evidence regarding the effect of routine or per-protocol testing on complications and other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for patients undergoing other procedures. No studies reported on quality of life, patient satisfaction, or harms related to testing.
Conclusions:
There is high strength of evidence that, for patients scheduled for cataract surgery, routine preoperative testing has no effect on total perioperative complications or procedure cancellation. There is insufficient evidence for all other procedures and insufficient evidence comparing routine and per-protocol testing. There is no evidence regarding quality of life or satisfaction, resource utilization, or harms of testing and no evidence regarding other factors that may affect the balance of benefits and harms. The findings of the cataract surgery studies are not reliably applicable to other patients undergoing other higher risk procedures. Except arguably for cataract surgery, numerous future adequately powered RCTs or well-conducted and analyzed observational comparative studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of routine preoperative testing in specific groups of patients with different risk factors for surgical and anesthetic complications undergoing specific types of procedures and types of anesthesia.
Contents
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2012-0012-I Prepared by: Brown Evidence-based Practice Center, Providence, RI
Suggested citation:
Balk EM, Earley A, Hadar N, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. Benefits and Harms of Routine Preoperative Testing: Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 130. (Prepared by Brown Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-0012-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC009-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-0012-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery[ 2014]Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal SurgeryDahabreh IJ, Steele DW, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. 2014 Apr
- Review Aspirin Use in Adults: Cancer, All-Cause Mortality, and Harms: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2015]Review Aspirin Use in Adults: Cancer, All-Cause Mortality, and Harms: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceWhitlock EP, Williams SB, Burda BU, Feightner A, Beil T. 2015 Sep
- Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceHenderson JT, Whitlock EP, O'Conner E, Senger CA, Thompson JH, Rowland MG. 2014 Apr
- Review Use of Aspirin and NSAIDs to Prevent Colorectal Cancer[ 2007]Review Use of Aspirin and NSAIDs to Prevent Colorectal CancerRostom A, Dube C, Lewin G. 2007 Mar
- Review Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLozano P, Henrikson NB, Dunn J, Morrison CC, Nguyen M, Blasi PR, Anderson ML, Whitlock E. 2016 Aug
- Benefits and Harms of Routine Preoperative Testing: Comparative EffectivenessBenefits and Harms of Routine Preoperative Testing: Comparative Effectiveness
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...