LBBB pre op clinic

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ethilo

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
347
Reaction score
421
5:30 PM you get a message on Epic from an RN in the RN-run pre surgery clinic asking to review an EKG they ordered that day that was abnormal on a patient scheduled to undergo robotic inguinal hernia repair in a couple weeks. EKG shows LBBB. You find the patient's last EKG in the chart which was done 10 years ago and it shows no LBBB.

What do you do?
 
5:30 PM you get a message on Epic from an RN in the RN-run pre surgery clinic asking to review an EKG they ordered that day that was abnormal on a patient scheduled to undergo robotic inguinal hernia repair in a couple weeks. EKG shows LBBB. You find the patient's last EKG in the chart which was done 10 years ago and it shows no LBBB.

What do you do?

Need to risk stratify
risk factors for ACS?
What does the patient look like?
symptoms? functional status? --> these ones are big

LBBB isn't even in the list for RCRI
robotic hernia is moderate surgical risk if that.
in absence of sx and with good functional status, i wouldn't work it up further

New LBBB is no longer considered an "equivalent" to MI
besides, who knows when in the last 10 years this pt developed this LBBB.
Sgarbossa Criteria can still be used
I would be much more worried for a LBBB that develops intraop in a high risk patient
 
5:30 PM you get a message on Epic from an RN in the RN-run pre surgery clinic asking to review an EKG they ordered that day that was abnormal on a patient scheduled to undergo robotic inguinal hernia repair in a couple weeks. EKG shows LBBB. You find the patient's last EKG in the chart which was done 10 years ago and it shows no LBBB.

What do you do?
I read the prompt incorrectly. NVM haha
 
Need to risk stratify
risk factors for ACS?
What does the patient look like?
symptoms? functional status? --> these ones are big

LBBB isn't even in the list for RCRI
robotic hernia is moderate surgical risk if that.
in absence of sx and with good functional status, i wouldn't work it up further

New LBBB is no longer considered an "equivalent" to MI
besides, who knows when in the last 10 years this pt developed this LBBB.
Sgarbossa Criteria can still be used
I would be much more worried for a LBBB that develops intraop in a high risk patient


This.

But given surgery is in a couple of weeks you can have cardiology see him if you think some of your peers might cancel the case.
 
It may be conservative but I'm sending this guy to cards, especially if he has poor functional status or other risk factors which would contribute to a higher RCRI score. Would possibly reconsider if this guy is some asymptomatic healthy 60 yo marathon runner with no other comorbidities. LBBB may be a benign electrical problem, but it also could be a sign of possible AS, AI, cardiomyopathy, bad CAD/MI etc
 
Sending him to cards for a blessing isn't exactly obstructive given the operation is a couple weeks out and it's elective.
 
Lets change the OP's scenario. Surgery is tomorrow. Would you postpone the case???
I guarantee some of my peers would.

There is minimal gain if the case goes well and a lot to lose if the case goes bad.

Should be postponed if elective.
 
Next step in the scenario:

I called the patient to get more info. He says he's been having small episodes of intermittent chest pains for the last 3 months since he lost his job. Currently doesn't have chest pain on the phone. Can't talk anymore because he's a truck driver and is driving into an unfamiliar new place and he needs to focus.
 
Chest pains are mostly sharp, left sided, mild and episodic
 
Next step in the scenario:

I called the patient to get more info. He says he's been having small episodes of intermittent chest pains for the last 3 months since he lost his job. Currently doesn't have chest pain on the phone. Can't talk anymore because he's a truck driver and is driving into an unfamiliar new place and he needs to focus.

Chest pains are mostly sharp, left sided, mild and episodic

LOL, is this even a question anymore? Chest pain and new LBBB in a guy whose occupation is sedentary, high thrombotic risk, high risk of being obese, smoker, and hypertensive.
 
Next step in the scenario:

I called the patient to get more info. He says he's been having small episodes of intermittent chest pains for the last 3 months since he lost his job. Currently doesn't have chest pain on the phone. Can't talk anymore because he's a truck driver and is driving into an unfamiliar new place and he needs to focus.

no controversy here
this guy needs an evaluation
 
IMHO cardiology consults for pre-operative evaluation and "clearance" are a complete waste of time and money. Not infrequently, even with strong indicators of active ischemia or pump failure, there is no nuclear stress test or Echo planned until AFTER the surgical procedure. I do my own echos now at the bedside in the pre-op area and use expansive questioning regarding exercise tolerance.
 
IMHO cardiology consults for pre-operative evaluation and "clearance" are a complete waste of time and money. Not infrequently, even with strong indicators of active ischemia or pump failure, there is no nuclear stress test or Echo planned until AFTER the surgical procedure. I do my own echos now at the bedside in the pre-op area and use expansive questioning regarding exercise tolerance.

So you wait until the day of surgery to cancel the case instead of sending him to a cardiologist 1-2 weeks preop that can get an echo or stress test done and prevent a same day cancellation?

Because a same day cancellation is a much bigger cost to the system that a visit to a cardiologist.
 
Robotic hernia? Is this a joke. Probably takes longer to set up and dock the robot than simply do it lap.

We do 5 or 6 of these a week. It's torture, and I highly suspect any patient agreeing to it doesn't really have anything close to informed consent vis a vis the dangers of a robot case
 
IMHO cardiology consults for pre-operative evaluation and "clearance" are a complete waste of time and money. Not infrequently, even with strong indicators of active ischemia or pump failure, there is no nuclear stress test or Echo planned until AFTER the surgical procedure. I do my own echos now at the bedside in the pre-op area and use expansive questioning regarding exercise tolerance.

Maybe it's the cardiologist you refer to?

For the cynic, the cardiology consult will lower your medicolegal risk when **** hits the fan.
 
For the cynic, the cardiology consult will lower your medicolegal risk when **** hits the fan.

I've always wondered if this is actually true? It seems to me that in the case of a bad (and somewhat unexpected) outcome, everyone with their name on the chart is getting thrown under the bus no matter what cards said.

Say in the case of our truck driver. Scenario A: We document that pt can perform >4 METS and deem the CP to be atypical and non-cardiac in nature. He has an intraop MI and dies. Scenario B: We send to him to cards, they determine the same thing and sign off on the surgery. He has an intraop MI and dies.

If the family is litigious, does having that cards note really lower liability?
 
Our cardiologists recently told us not to send them patients with new LBBB unless they have anginal symptoms or significant risk factors.
 
I've always wondered if this is actually true? It seems to me that in the case of a bad (and somewhat unexpected) outcome, everyone with their name on the chart is getting thrown under the bus no matter what cards said.

Say in the case of our truck driver. Scenario A: We document that pt can perform >4 METS and deem the CP to be atypical and non-cardiac in nature. He has an intraop MI and dies. Scenario B: We send to him to cards, they determine the same thing and sign off on the surgery. He has an intraop MI and dies.

If the family is litigious, does having that cards note really lower liability?
I would think that it would. You sent him to an expert and followed his recommendations. That would play a whole lot better in front of a jury especially because his lawyer is sure to bring up the pre op EKG abnormality ....
 
I would think that it would. You sent him to an expert and followed his recommendations. That would play a whole lot better in front of a jury especially because his lawyer is sure to bring up the pre op EKG abnormality ....

As long as there weren't obvious mismanagement of the pt intraop, I think it would. The cardiologist's pocket is probably as deep as ours, and it would be much easier to litigate directly against them
 
I've always wondered if this is actually true? It seems to me that in the case of a bad (and somewhat unexpected) outcome, everyone with their name on the chart is getting thrown under the bus no matter what cards said.

Say in the case of our truck driver. Scenario A: We document that pt can perform >4 METS and deem the CP to be atypical and non-cardiac in nature. He has an intraop MI and dies. Scenario B: We send to him to cards, they determine the same thing and sign off on the surgery. He has an intraop MI and dies.

If the family is litigious, does having that cards note really lower liability?
We were always told that "We (anesthesiologists) are the final clearance". If what you say is all documented then it comes down to performing a "standard of care" anesthetic and have a good long talking to with the patient and if a poor outcome occurs it gets filed under the "S**T Happens" category. Not the we all do this on a daily basis, but even in healthy patients we should tell them there's risk of allergy, MI, stroke, etc......because s**t happens, but it rarely does. But when it does it sucks and in higher risks patients it's nice to have a note from a "peer" who also said the patient was good for the procedure.
 
IMHO cardiology consults for pre-operative evaluation and "clearance" are a complete waste of time and money. Not infrequently, even with strong indicators of active ischemia or pump failure, there is no nuclear stress test or Echo planned until AFTER the surgical procedure. I do my own echos now at the bedside in the pre-op area and use expansive questioning regarding exercise tolerance.

Do you use a pocket ultrasound or ? Can I ask what kind of doctor you are just intrigued.
 
I do not refer patients for "cardiac clearance". Our surgeons do.
This stance my be considered divisive in a large group. I would ask for a cardiology consult with chest pain and new onset lbbb. Would 50% of you do the case? Would 100% have no problem if the cardiologist signed off? This is socially simple get the consult generate some revenue for the cardiologist. Zu ze case.
 
I am an anesthesiologist, and use a cardiac probe rP19xp with the Sonosite X-Porte. There are cardiac probes available for most current ultrasound machines.
The purpose of most cardiac referrals by surgeons is for "clearance", meaning there is a reasonable chance the patient might survive the surgery. Cardiac referrals in which the cardiologist plans post operative evaluations with Echo, nuclear stress tests, etc. do nothing to help the anesthesiologist in the conduct of anesthesia in a patient that may be severely compromised. Bedside echocardiography helps fill the vacuum of inappropriate non-evaluation by cardiologists. Occasionally I will cancel an elective surgery based on my own echo when it appears there is severe pathology (e.g. severe aortic stenosis previously undiagnosed and having symptoms) and at times use intraoperative echocardiography when there is hemodynamic instability. Bedside echocardiography can also avoid cancellation of surgery when a significant new heart murmur is detected.
 
The patient needs an exercise or lexiscan perfusion study and very likely a cath. You can call the cardiologist and have this discussion before referral to ensure it isn't blown off before the patient comes to the OR. He doesn’t need a bedside echo without an official report by someone not board certified in cardiology. LBBB with chest pain in a sedentary truck driver doesn’t get to pass the cardiologists office without stopping before he heads to the OR.
 
One thing to keep in mind, we don't need a cards referral or for anyone to "sign off" before we order a stress echo or MPI. We are more than qualified to do so as the physician who is ultimately responsible for the pt's surgical risk stratification. If PAT calls me about a pt who clearly needs further cardiac workup, I'll order the 12 lead and a stress echo and try to get them done that day even if there's not a cards appt open.
 
The purpose of most cardiac referrals by surgeons is for "clearance", meaning there is a reasonable chance the patient might survive the surgery. Cardiac referrals in which the cardiologist plans post operative evaluations with Echo, nuclear stress tests, etc. do nothing to help the anesthesiologist in the conduct of anesthesia in a patient that may be severely compromised.


we refer patients to cardiology preoperatively so they can get those needed tests done preoperatively, not postoperatively.
 
These echo's are getting out of control lol. Not too long ago a newer grad anesthesiologist in our group cancelled a case bc she saw a recent echo on the patient which showed aortic SCLEROSIS not seen before on the previous echo. Otherwise completely normal echo. Pt is healthy and says he runs 3 miles a day. She cancelled for further workup. The pt himself was literally laughing at her
 
It's fine that we can all bedside TTE someone and estimate EF and look at valves, but bear in mind, even someone with significant CAD can have a normal EF and normal valves. I agree with Southpaw. Send this guy to cards for a formal evaluation for this elective case. If it were and emergency incarcerated hernia then you have to do what you have to do
 
He doesn’t need a bedside echo without an official report by someone not board certified in cardiology.

I agree with this. I think bedside TTE is a valuable skill to have, and I'll do it for emergency or urgent cases as a POC test to give myself a little more information before doing the case, minutes later. It's a useful tool. What TTE in my hands is not, is an end run around appropriate preop workup in the weeks before elective surgery.

If a patient scheduled for elective surgery in two weeks has risk factors, symptoms, and a new LBBB, he goes to cardiology. And not just because I'm TEE boarded not TTE boarded and I'm anxious about medicolegal cover, but because it's the right thing for the patient. This patient may need intervention and the cardiologist, not me, is best suited to make that determination.

I don't want clearance from a cardiologist, I want a statement that the patient is optimized, and on top of that some objective echo/cath/stress test data is nice to have.


Bedside echocardiography can also avoid cancellation of surgery when a significant new heart murmur is detected.

... how often does this happen in your practice? I’ve never seen this.

I wouldn't turn a no-go into a go decision based on what I saw on a bedside TTE in holding. Our guidelines without it are sufficient. If you hear a loud murmur and the patient's functional status and symptoms don't justify canceling, you're going to do the case but maybe assume the worst and be careful. A bedside TTE can be useful there.

I guess it's conceivable that if I put a probe on someone and saw terrible AS or MS or an EF of 15 when I was expecting 60, I might turn a go into a no-go but it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be symptoms from the history.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I view bedside TTE as more of a reason to justify canceling if I get some vibe that all is not well, than to turn a cancel into a go.


A few weeks ago we had a case (not mine, I heard about it as the M&M coordinator) where a loud previously undocumented murmur was heard in preop holding on the day of surgery. They assumed it was AS and put in a preinduction a-line and proceeded cautiously. Patient crumped anyway and needed large doses of norepi and vaso to stabilize. They aborted, woke up, admitted. Postop workup showed a Hb of 4.something and a normal echo. It was just a hell of a flow murmur from the high CO and low viscosity. Maybe a bedside echo would've changed the plan from go to no-go by showing no valvular disease and prompting a search for another reason? I don't know. That's maybe a stretch. Maybe it would've reassured them enough not to do an a-line and the patient would've coded before the next q3min NIBP.

Anyway, bedside TTE in preop holding is outside our go/no-go decision making guidelines, and for me I think it's a nice source for supplemental information to do the case I was going to do anyway. I wouldn't use it to un-cancel a case I was going to cancel.
 
Issues with cardiology consults in our system: 1. We have a preop clinic staffed by nurses, who do a decent job of cardiac referrals after checking with the anesthesiologists, for patients that are actually seen there. This is a minority of patients. Others refuse or do not show up. The cardiology workup in my area from multiple cardiology groups is minimal, frequently deferring the workup until after surgery because of the cardiologist schedules. 2. Those that do not go to preop clinic may have been referred by the surgeon for a cardiac workup, with exactly the same results. Not all patients are blown off by cardiology, but at least 40% are, leaving us with a cardiac approval without a cardiac workup, and a surgeon waving the cardiology letter in front of us. These are systemic problems that cannot be solved easily by anesthesiology.

I agree I cannot deliver the same quality of workup as a formal set of testing, but we use the tools we have, and learn their implications. It does not require a board certified cardiologist to be able to visualize wall motion abnormalities, determine EF, valvular issues, pulmonary hypertension, atrial enlargement, etc.

In an ideal world patients with cardiac disease would be worked up in advance of surgery with an adequate cardiology workup, but we do not live in an ideal world. As for the new murmurs, I saw one yesterday with severe mitral stenosis on Echo that was having symptoms of fatigue and occasional palpitations. I have seen several of these in the past year with significant murmurs but the patient was never told of a murmur by a physician or midlevel/lowlevel practitioner.
 
It's fine that we can all bedside TTE someone and estimate EF and look at valves, but bear in mind, even someone with significant CAD can have a normal EF and normal valves. I agree with Southpaw. Send this guy to cards for a formal evaluation for this elective case. If it were and emergency incarcerated hernia then you have to do what you have to do


This. A large proportion of patients presenting for CABG have normal resting echos and normal resting EKGs. They are not sensitive for ischemic heart disease.
 
Agree. We need a bedside ischemia test.

DXy55eyWsAAbHei.jpg
 
Issues with cardiology consults in our system: 1. We have a preop clinic staffed by nurses, who do a decent job of cardiac referrals after checking with the anesthesiologists, for patients that are actually seen there. This is a minority of patients. Others refuse or do not show up. The cardiology workup in my area from multiple cardiology groups is minimal, frequently deferring the workup until after surgery because of the cardiologist schedules. 2. Those that do not go to preop clinic may have been referred by the surgeon for a cardiac workup, with exactly the same results. Not all patients are blown off by cardiology, but at least 40% are, leaving us with a cardiac approval without a cardiac workup, and a surgeon waving the cardiology letter in front of us. These are systemic problems that cannot be solved easily by anesthesiology.

I agree I cannot deliver the same quality of workup as a formal set of testing, but we use the tools we have, and learn their implications. It does not require a board certified cardiologist to be able to visualize wall motion abnormalities, determine EF, valvular issues, pulmonary hypertension, atrial enlargement, etc.

In an ideal world patients with cardiac disease would be worked up in advance of surgery with an adequate cardiology workup, but we do not live in an ideal world. As for the new murmurs, I saw one yesterday with severe mitral stenosis on Echo that was having symptoms of fatigue and occasional palpitations. I have seen several of these in the past year with significant murmurs but the patient was never told of a murmur by a physician or midlevel/lowlevel practitioner.

This sounds like a major lawsuit waiting to happen. Cardiology blowing off patients and patients not undergoing standard testing. Wouldn’t want to work in this situation personally.
 
I don't think on this information an echo is necessary. So what if there's some coronary artery disease? Coronary revascularisation does not reduce perioperative risk, so there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Revascularisation is good for a LM stenosis (which needs CABG) or an ACS; otherwise all it does is improve symptoms.

If the guy can manage > 4 METS, he doesn't have LM stenosis/significant valvular disease/significant systolic dysfunction, and surgery should proceed. If he can't, or functional capacity is uncertain, a stress test (TTE or NM) should be considered. Even then, only valvular disease, significant systolic dysfunction or LM stenosis might benefit from intervention.

I'm a fan of the AHA/ACC guidelines, especially their perioperative cardiac assessment flowchart (under section 4 "approach to perioperative cardiac testing")
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/cir.0000000000000106
 
I don't think on this information an echo is necessary. So what if there's some coronary artery disease? Coronary revascularisation does not reduce perioperative risk, so there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Revascularisation is good for a LM stenosis (which needs CABG) or an ACS; otherwise all it does is improve symptoms.

If the guy can manage > 4 METS, he doesn't have LM stenosis/significant valvular disease/significant systolic dysfunction, and surgery should proceed. If he can't, or functional capacity is uncertain, a stress test (TTE or NM) should be considered. Even then, only valvular disease, significant systolic dysfunction or LM stenosis might benefit from intervention.

I'm a fan of the AHA/ACC guidelines, especially their perioperative cardiac assessment flowchart (under section 4 "approach to perioperative cardiac testing")
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/cir.0000000000000106


so you are saying that in someone with an occluded LAD but no symptoms yet would not benefit from this elective case being postponed and having a stent to open that LAD? In the setting of the heart being stressed under the hemodynamic changes of anesthesia and surgery, I would think the LAD lesion would cause a problem and a stent would be a better situation...
 
I would love to have a pre-op nuclear test on some of the patients with symptoms of ischemic heart disease but our cardiologists prefer to do this after the elective surgical procedure in many cases.

Cardiac evaluations are all about overall survival of patients, not what the best course of action would be intraop to assure that survival nor in optimizing patients status prior to elective surgery. To them, indeed it makes no difference whether the patient is optimized or not since their survival will not be impacted by stenting prior to elective surgery.

Patient a few days ago had a LVEF of 20% with global hypokinesis on preop bedside echo but the cardiologist told him 15 minutes previously (without an Echo) that he thought the ejection fraction was around 45-50% based on his curbside consult and that the risk of anesthesia would be minimal. The last (formal) Echo from 2018 also demonstrated a 20% LVEF. This was not elective surgery, but the Echo changed our anesthetic plan from a general to a regional block.

Preop Echo can make a difference in anesthetic approach, and is not a difficult skill to add to preop assessment when indicated.
 
Last edited:
I would love to have a pre-op nuclear test on some of the patients with symptoms of ischemic heart disease but our cardiologists prefer to do this after the elective surgical procedure in many cases.

I would love to see how they document for the need for that test but that it can wait til after the surgery, or should I say if I was a malpractice attorney I would love to see that documentation. I mean it's not like surgery induces a hypercoagulable state or stresses the heart in any way.
 
so you are saying that in someone with an occluded LAD but no symptoms yet would not benefit from this elective case being postponed and having a stent to open that LAD?
Yes, I think that stenting with the aim of avoiding perioperative cardiac events is not helpful.

We've known since the CARP trial (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa041905) that, at least outside of LM disease, AS and LVEF < 20%, revascularisation doesn't reduce perioperative risk.

This and other studies has lead the ACC/AHA to recommend that people should not be revascularised before surgery, unless they would be revascularised if they walked into their primary care doctor clinic. In those 2014 guidelines, CABG is recommended for LM, TVD and 2 vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement. PCI has a weaker recommendation for all of these; it has never shown a mortality benefit outside of ACS.

I'd argue (as would these guidelines/most cardiologists) that patients with severe coronary disease will have < 4 METS. Of course there's room for using clinical intuition here but I think that most people overestimate how much benefit their patients will get from a stent.
 
Also remember that if they are revascularized with stents, the elective hernia repair is postponed at least 6 months.
 
Top