New onset aflutter pre op... Cancel?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
So... can you explain the cardiac risk difference between a patient with known CAD and greater than 4 METS going for TKA, and this pt w rate controlled AF and greater than 4 METS who may but most likely do not have CAD? Why is >4 METS an acceptable method of assessing perioperative MACE risk for everyone other than AF?
You answered your own question with your reply. The former pt you described has *KNOWN" CAD which presumably means a cardiovascular disease expert has determined that the CAD is non-obstructive, not causing symptoms, is being treated with optimal medical therapy, and thus doesn't need to be intervened upon procedurally.

OTOH, we essentially don't know anything about why this guy has new onset aflutter and what kind of rhythm control / AC he needs.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In summary :
In all probability you can do the case and things will go just fine. That being said, TKA is a major surgical procedure which will increase the probability of a stroke. With a new (and very well documented )risk factor for stroke and the patient having a completely elective surgery, but would cancel and have the patient evaluated…
 
So what underlying cause would change the management of the patient long term and the anesthesic management of the patient that makes the delay worth it? Are you going to get this guy a cabg for his knee replacement? Start some eliquis so you can stop it again before surgery?

Patient and surgical risk factors are always going to be there and it's still going to be elective.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
New onset or New diagnosis? Not the same

Anything “new” is no bueno in my book, especially on the day of surgery.

it means I’m the only doctors that I has ever laid my eyes on the condition. We are very good at treating acute things, long term management unfortunately, isn’t one of those.

New “onset” - how long has it been? What’s the chance of him developing clot? Can I look it up? Sure. But is it in the scope of my practice? Perhaps, but hard to justify if anything were to happen.

New “diagnosed” - did we really diagnosed it? Do we know the etiology of it? Are we starting anticoagulation? Are we really following the “standard of care” of a newly diagnosed atrial arrhythmia?

Sounds like we can’t even agree on if it’s aflutter or afib. If I was admitting this patient, in my assessment, it would be something like “ekg consistent with aflutter….” I wouldn’t commit to a “diagnosis” yet. Just like allergy list, once it goes on, the chance of it comes off, is virtually zero.

I’d put the odds of getting him through with zero problems at >95%. I wouldn’t mind to have cardiology’s blessing before I go onto an elective procedures, that’s all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So what underlying cause would change the management of the patient long term and the anesthesic management of the patient that makes the delay worth it? Are you going to get this guy a cabg for his knee replacement? Start some eliquis so you can stop it again before surgery?

Patient and surgical risk factors are always going to be there and it's still going to be elective.
Purely medicolegal. Let him get cardiology clearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I find this discussion sort of interesting, especially those ok with proceeding, since we were having a very similar discussion about doing an EGD/colonoscopy on a patient with sub therapeutic INR.

In my book, new onset arrhythmia with an elective surgery is canceled and gets a cardiologist work up. If the case is an emergency then it’s a different story
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
So what underlying cause would change the management of the patient long term and the anesthesic management of the patient that makes the delay worth it? Are you going to get this guy a cabg for his knee replacement? Start some eliquis so you can stop it again before surgery?

Patient and surgical risk factors are always going to be there and it's still going to be elective.
The cardiologist can get him worked up and give a blessing for surgery. We’ve also had many a patient in our cath lab suite or procedure room getting ablations and TEE/cardioversions so they can have some other procedure. It’s inconvenient absolutely for the patient who has knee pain and the ortho who has a schedule but as someone else said, any “new onset l arrhythmia” should be worked up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Un
So what underlying cause would change the management of the patient long term and the anesthesic management of the patient that makes the delay worth it? Are you going to get this guy a cabg for his knee replacement? Start some eliquis so you can stop it again before surgery?

Patient and surgical risk factors are always going to be there and it's still going to be elective.
Untreated thyroid disease, severe OSA, electrolyte abnormalities, ischemic CAD which although everyone likes to say “ok 4 METS your fine” the peri operative risk of MACE is definitely decreased by outpt isn’t beta blocker started many weeks prior to surgery.

You can you do anesthesia uneventfully with any of the above underlying conditions, but for me this is an oral board fail and a real life mis management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
New onset arrhythmia on a patient getting elective surgery means cancel the case and get cardiology consult.
It's not because there is solid science to support this approach, but because most reasonable people don't enjoy dealing with malpractice lawyers and spending time in depositions being accused of incompetence. You will be blamed for any complication even if unrelated.

Would you cancel a patient with Mobitz I? Would you cancel an asymptomatic patient with a LBBB? Would you cancel a patient with a few PVCs because it could be due to ischemia or thyrotoxicosis? Just like with rate controlled AF, according to ACC/AHA these arrhythmias do not warrant cancelling surgery for cardiologist referral and optimization.

I get that there is an true patient safety side of things, and there is a "cover your ass" medicolegal side of things. The standard of care is based on recommendations from the ACC/AHA, and it is spelled out quite well. If you want to play even more conservatively because you are afraid of the lawyers then thats another thing. What I don't get is how many anesthesiologists here seem to conflate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Un

Untreated thyroid disease, severe OSA, electrolyte abnormalities, ischemic CAD which although everyone likes to say “ok 4 METS your fine” the peri operative risk of MACE is definitely decreased by outpt isn’t beta blocker started many weeks prior to surgery.

You can you do anesthesia uneventfully with any of the above underlying conditions, but for me this is an oral board fail and a real life mis management.

So your ONLY indication that an asymptomatic patient has severe thyroid dz, severe OSA, ischemic CAD is because the patient has newly diagnosed AF? That's utterly ridiculous. The stats show this. In the absence of other symptoms, the likelihood of an underlying medical issue as you've described is <1%.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Would you cancel a patient with Mobitz I? Would you cancel an asymptomatic patient with a LBBB? Would you cancel a patient with a few PVCs because it could be due to ischemia or thyrotoxicosis? Just like with rate controlled AF, according to ACC/AHA these arrhythmias do not warrant cancelling surgery for cardiologist referral and optimization.

I get that there is an true patient safety side of things, and there is a "cover your ass" medicolegal side of things. The standard of care is based on recommendations from the ACC/AHA, and it is spelled out quite well. If you want to play even more conservatively because you are afraid of the lawyers then thats another thing. What I don't get is how many anesthesiologists here seem to conflate them.

But that’s the thing, it’s not spelled out well. Does it say new onset stable a flutter proceed with intermediate risk surgery without further work up or intervention? It does not say that anywhere I can find.

There are multiple interpretations of what the risk here is. It comes down to a simple risk/benefit analysis. The risk is small, but the benefit of proceeding is even smaller. A colectomy for colon cancer and I’m proceeding. A TKA in guy who is still able to exercise 5x per week and live his life can wait a week. Sometimes these are situationally dependent decisions and no matter how hard I try, I cannot think of a good reason to proceed here other than the AHA gives some vague guidelines saying the risk is low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Would you cancel a patient with Mobitz I? Would you cancel an asymptomatic patient with a LBBB? Would you cancel a patient with a few PVCs because it could be due to ischemia or thyrotoxicosis? Just like with rate controlled AF, according to ACC/AHA these arrhythmias do not warrant cancelling surgery for cardiologist referral and optimization.

I get that there is an true patient safety side of things, and there is a "cover your ass" medicolegal side of things. The standard of care is based on recommendations from the ACC/AHA, and it is spelled out quite well. If you want to play even more conservatively because you are afraid of the lawyers then thats another thing. What I don't get is how many anesthesiologists here seem to conflate them.
I mean, I get what you're saying but it's also that <1% scenario that can burn you. "Getting clearance" has always been an interesting concept and I'd like to hear more people's experience. In residency we were always taught that we, as in anesthesia, is always the final clearance so it doesn't matter what some medicine doc or cardiologist writes "Ok-ing" someone for surgery. On the other hand, "getting clearance" has become this "ticket to surgery" that surgeons and proceduralist use and even we ourselves as a specialty use it to make us feel better about giving anesthesia to someone who may or may not need it. Despite my saying in a post above to "get a cardiologists" blessing, which is something probably like 95% of us will do, it does make me wonder how much that cardiologist note holds up in the <1% scenario where something bad happens.

In the case given, the boards will do everything they can to get you to actually proceed with the case. We all know "cancel case" isn't the escape route in that room, but I would also say that the board exam is far from the real world and if community standard is to get a cardiologist consult for new onset arrhythmias in elective surgery, I would probably fall in line.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I mean, I get what you're saying but it's also that <1% scenario that can burn you. "Getting clearance" has always been an interesting concept and I'd like to hear more people's experience. In residency we were always taught that we, as in anesthesia, is always the final clearance so it doesn't matter what some medicine doc or cardiologist writes "Ok-ing" someone for surgery. On the other hand, "getting clearance" has become this "ticket to surgery" that surgeons and proceduralist use and even we ourselves as a specialty use it to make us feel better about giving anesthesia to someone who may or may not need it. Despite my saying in a post above to "get a cardiologists" blessing, which is something probably like 95% of us will do, it does make me wonder how much that cardiologist note holds up in the <1% scenario where something bad happens.

In the case given, the boards will do everything they can to get you to actually proceed with the case. We all know "cancel case" isn't the escape route in that room, but I would also say that the board exam is far from the real world and if community standard is to get a cardiologist consult for new onset arrhythmias in elective surgery, I would probably fall in line.

If the oral boards were the real world, I would be walking around with the fiberoptic tower ready to “awake fiberoptic” anyone who looks at me funny.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users
Would you cancel a patient with Mobitz I? Would you cancel an asymptomatic patient with a LBBB? Would you cancel a patient with a few PVCs because it could be due to ischemia or thyrotoxicosis? Just like with rate controlled AF, according to ACC/AHA these arrhythmias do not warrant cancelling surgery for cardiologist referral and optimization.

I get that there is an true patient safety side of things, and there is a "cover your ass" medicolegal side of things. The standard of care is based on recommendations from the ACC/AHA, and it is spelled out quite well. If you want to play even more conservatively because you are afraid of the lawyers then thats another thing. What I don't get is how many anesthesiologists here seem to conflate them.
Yes I would cancel a new LBBB if they never had one before and show up for elective surgery. I would proceed with elective surgery in Mobitz type 1 or frequent PVCs, new LBBB or new AF or Aflutter needs workup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
That's the thing. The patient is already rate controlled, hemodynamically stable, and basically doing a stress test daily with his excellent exercise tolerance.

The thing I worry most about is that the a-flutter just started and has not been present during previous periods of activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just wanted to say that I appreciate the discussion in this thread, very interesting to read through and see such a variety of opinion.

I do think that we as a specialty need to be more comfortable taking ownership of certain things, offering “mission critical” pieces of data and/or recommendations. To look at an EKG that is very obviously A Flutter and refuse to commit to A Flutter as a diagnosis strikes me as absurd. We are supposed to be experts in peri-operative management of cardiopulmonary issues- and yet we wonder why CRNAs are replacing us, or why other doctors don’t respect us as a specialty… however, I recognize this sentiment is not universally shared, and plenty of my colleagues are perfectly happy getting paid the big bucks while bending over backwards to avoid any sort professional liability. I am also a young buck, perhaps I will feel differently once I am older and have been sued a couple of times?

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
To look at an EKG that is very obviously A Flutter and refuse to commit to A Flutter as a diagnosis strikes me as absurd.

Aflutter as far as I am concerned is a “sign”. Is it a diagnosis? I am sure there is a cpt code for it.
I am more interested in the cause…. Electrolyte abnormalities, conduction abnormalities, PE, NSTMI, neuro causes? “I” personally will not “diagnose” a sign. Just like radiologists, clinical correlation is needed. In this case, some sort of work up is needed. Maybe it’s manifestation of something more sinister? Do I have time in preop to work it up? No. Can I work it up? Absolutely. Will my partners be happy that I spent the next 2 hours to get labs, rather than moving on to my next anesthetics?

What if the aflutter is caused by dehydration, because of NPO? as soon as the patient drank enough it goes away. Now you’ve just committed the patient to explain the diagnosis for the rest of his life.

That’s just me though. Under our current health care system, which the patient is the only person who can provide “accurate” history. I don’t think it’s fair to the patient, nor the next physician to label the patients with a possibly very transient condition. Once it goes on the list, it stays on the list. I’ve seen my shares of “allergic to epinephrine - heart stoped” in the chart to think twice before I label my patient anything ….
 
Is it a diagnosis?
...Yes. It is.

And as far as I'm aware, most people with otherwise healthy normal hearts don't have episodes of AFib or flutter when they skip breakfast. If they do, they probably have some sort of underlying predisposition (either some variety of structural heart disease, atrial enlargement, atrial scar with abnormal electrophysiologic mapping, intrinsic conduction system disease, etc). These patients are highly likely to have future episodes of atrial dysrhythmias, and until you have a Holter monitor showing prolonged periods of sinus rhythm without further episodes of AF, I think it is appropriate for them to carry the diagnosis of PAROXYSMAL AFib, and be treated appropriately (anticoagulated, rate controlled, etc).

Now if you tell me someone had an episode of AF or flutter after cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, major abdominal surgery, etc, when a surgeon was poking at the heart, there are massive fluid shifts, inotropic drugs on board, neurohormonal activation, blah blah blah... Sure, I would buy the argument that these patients aren't necessarily the same as someone who is in and out of AF at home while sitting on the couch, and it would be "unfair" to label them as having paroxysmal AF forever. They're probably more likely to develop paroxysmal AF down the road, since they've shown that they have arrhythmogenic substrate, but that's just my supposition.
 
...Yes. It is.

And as far as I'm aware, most people with otherwise healthy normal hearts don't have episodes of AFib or flutter when they skip breakfast. If they do, they probably have some sort of underlying predisposition (either some variety of structural heart disease, atrial enlargement, atrial scar with abnormal electrophysiologic mapping, intrinsic conduction system disease, etc). These patients are highly likely to have future episodes of atrial dysrhythmias, and until you have a Holter monitor showing prolonged periods of sinus rhythm without further episodes of AF, I think it is appropriate for them to carry the diagnosis of PAROXYSMAL AFib, and be treated appropriately (anticoagulated, rate controlled, etc).

Now if you tell me someone had an episode of AF or flutter after cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, major abdominal surgery, etc, when a surgeon was poking at the heart, there are massive fluid shifts, inotropic drugs on board, neurohormonal activation, blah blah blah... Sure, I would buy the argument that these patients aren't necessarily the same as someone who is in and out of AF at home while sitting on the couch, and it would be "unfair" to label them as having paroxysmal AF forever. They're probably more likely to develop paroxysmal AF down the road, since they've shown that they have arrhythmogenic substrate, but that's just my supposition.

If I cannot carry the diagnostic work up to its end, I will not add something as diagnosis. If I look at an ekg seeing S1Q3T3, it’s “consistent” with PE. Unless I order a CTA and follow through with the patient, I will not label patient with PE.

Just as in this patient, unless I personally follow through with the work up…. What if the patient had terrible diarrhea, and pooped his brain out two days in a row before ekg and now sodium is 120 and potassium is 2.5. And it is transient? Isn’t the most common arrhythmia after anesthesia, afib? What if the patient never see it again?

I think the diagnostic criteria for hypertension at least two separate reading of sbp > 140 or dbp > 100 is there for a reason. Or maybe my internist just want to see me more so he can see me more….. hmmmm. Maybe. I digress.
 
Well, I didn't expect to have such a fantastic discussion, thank you all for the input, I definitely learned a lot from all your input, especially @coffeebythelake I appreciate you taking a stance and bringing up a bunch of great evidence and fueling the discussion!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Aflutter as far as I am concerned is a “sign”. Is it a diagnosis? I am sure there is a cpt code for it.
I am more interested in the cause…. Electrolyte abnormalities, conduction abnormalities, PE, NSTMI, neuro causes? “I” personally will not “diagnose” a sign. Just like radiologists, clinical correlation is needed. In this case, some sort of work up is needed. Maybe it’s manifestation of something more sinister? Do I have time in preop to work it up? No. Can I work it up? Absolutely. Will my partners be happy that I spent the next 2 hours to get labs, rather than moving on to my next anesthetics?

What if the aflutter is caused by dehydration, because of NPO? as soon as the patient drank enough it goes away. Now you’ve just committed the patient to explain the diagnosis for the rest of his life.

That’s just me though. Under our current health care system, which the patient is the only person who can provide “accurate” history. I don’t think it’s fair to the patient, nor the next physician to label the patients with a possibly very transient condition. Once it goes on the list, it stays on the list. I’ve seen my shares of “allergic to epinephrine - heart stoped” in the chart to think twice before I label my patient anything ….
Come on…. An arrhythmia is a diagnosis, with the EKG being diagnostic.

I48. 92 - Unspecified atrial flutter | ICD-10-CM.

It is a conduction abnormality caused by an abnormal focus in the atrium. Whether there is an underlying etiology for the diagnosis is what the workup is for.

A “sign” is something you get on physical exam, such as irregular rate on palpating of a pulse. A “symptom” is something the patient reports, such as palpitations, SOB, or feeling presyncipal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Come on…. An arrhythmia is a diagnosis, with the EKG being diagnostic.

I48. 92 - Unspecified atrial flutter | ICD-10-CM.

It is a conduction abnormality caused by an abnormal focus in the atrium. Whether there is an underlying etiology for the diagnosis is what the workup is for.

A “sign” is something you get on physical exam, such as irregular rate on palpating of a pulse. A “symptom” is something the patient reports, such as palpitations, SOB, or feeling presyncipal.
I think he knows it's technically a diagnosis. It's why he put "sign" in quotes and then said he's sure there's a code for it.

The point is that the etiology of the diagnosis has not been established, and to him (and me) that matters because the etiology can be benign or it can be serious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think he knows it's technically a diagnosis. It's why he put "sign" in quotes and then said he's sure there's a code for it.

The point is that the etiology of the diagnosis has not been established, and to him (and me) that matters because the etiology can be benign or it can be serious.

And that's when doctoring and risk stratifying the patients make a difference. These diagnosis and conditions are not a monolith. Any lab, test, study should be interpreted within the clinical context.
 
I don't think anyone is wrong whichever decision they make, per se. Given the case presentation and the likely chosen anesthetic (spinal with block) this guy will probably do just fine and yes, will get some lovenox post op and then can go see a cardiologist. It's also not an incorrect answer to send this guy to a cardiologist to work up a new onset arrhythmia. Sure the patient will say "Im fine" because he wants his knee fixed that's been causing him pain, but in reality, what kind of actual exertion has this 70 something year old man with knee problems being doing to know if the flutter is affecting him and furthermore, is he being honest about it. I think in this situation we all have our biases of what we would do to keep ourselves out of trouble, whether it's with surgeons and medicolegally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
75 year old, exercises 5x weekly, essentially otherwise healthy here for total knee arthroplasty, intake standard preop EKG on day of surgery patient has typical flutter with ventricular rate of 55, no evidence of ischemia. Pt is asymptomatic, hemodynamically stable, has no previous cardiac evaluation.

Would you cancel or proceed?
Had a case like this a few weeks ago, totally healthy guy that runs marathons, in for a knee scope. All patients get put on tele preop, nurse informs me something is weird. He's alternating between heart block with rate <40 and Aflutter. Got an EKG, showed the surgeon, offered to proceed with defib pads on since he was totally asymptomatic, that scared her enough to postpone for a cardiology workup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Had a case like this a few weeks ago, totally healthy guy that runs marathons, in for a knee scope. All patients get put on tele preop, nurse informs me something is weird. He's alternating between heart block with rate <40 and Aflutter. Got an EKG, showed the surgeon, offered to proceed with defib pads on since he was totally asymptomatic, that scared her enough to postpone for a cardiology workup.

Ha had a case with a patient who lives at a hr in the 20s. Totally asymptomatic for years. Had isoproterenol and pacer in the room but he did totally fine.
 
Had a case like this a few weeks ago, totally healthy guy that runs marathons, in for a knee scope. All patients get put on tele preop, nurse informs me something is weird. He's alternating between heart block with rate <40 and Aflutter. Got an EKG, showed the surgeon, offered to proceed with defib pads on since he was totally asymptomatic, that scared her enough to postpone for a cardiology workup.
You really would have shocked the guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Would cancel without reservations, for same arguments as already stated. Just wanted to point out that exercising 5x/week is meaningless to me. The guy needs a tka, he ain’t doing HIT sprints on the treadmill. He could be doing water ballet for all we know. Also what is the incidence/likelihood of throwing off emboli when converting new afib/a flutter rvr to sinus? I wouldn’t want to find out personally.
 
Maybe he would place the pads for pacing. But that begs a question. Is it okay to percutaneously pace somebody who may have a LAA clot?

Presumably if you are also ok giving the same patient anything that changes their heart rate and inotropy. Transcutaneous pacing js not a cardiac massage or cardioversion
 
Last edited:
Presumably if you are also ok giving the same patient anything that changes their heart rate and inotropy. Transcutaneous pacing js not a cardiac massage.


Maybe a dumb question but can transcutaneous pacing cause an atrium that was previously fibrillating or fluttering to start contracting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe a dumb question but can transcutaneous pacing cause an atrium that was previously fibrillating or fluttering to start contracting?
Interesting thought… I don’t think you can pace a fibrillating atrium, but is the voltage used with transcutaneous pacing high enough to achieve a cardioversion? honestly not sure what kind of voltages are used for Transcutaneous pacing is it’s done so rarely
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe a dumb question but can transcutaneous pacing cause an atrium that was previously fibrillating or fluttering to start contracting?

Doubt it. To go from disorganized quivering to actual contracting is cardioversion and the energy used is way higher than for TCP. The day to day risk of a patient spontaneously flipping from AF to sinus is much more likely to flip a clot and cause stroke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
OP here, patient was seen by cardiology in clinic, here's copied from their plan:

Stable
Refer to discuss Watchman and ?ablation of Atrial flutter
Start Elliquis
Echo to r/o structural heart disease
Schedule DCCV in 4 weeks
Delay knee surgery till 2 weeks after cardioversion
Return 6 weeks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
To rephrase, what you are asking is this:

"How do I know a patient has severe aortic stenosis, or severe mitral stenosis if they have a murmur and never had an echo?


**This is an issue relating to the diagnosis of the valvular abnormality, not an issue of defining what is actually the valvular abnormality that warrants cardiologist referral**,

To Make The Diagnosis: You might do a bedside echo, or if you don't know how to you might decide to get a formal TTE... but you don't send a patient to the cardiologist for cardiac evaluation and optimization because of a murmur. To reiterate this point... if you palpate a patient's pulse in preop and felt irregularly irregular heart rate at 120, you order a 12-lead EKG to make the diagnosis. You don't just send the patient to the cardiologist so they can make the diagnosis for you.

You say that guidelines recommend against preoperative screening echocardiograms. But if a patient has a murmur that make you worried about hemodynamically significant pathology, then this isn't a screening examination is it?

Agreed, this is a Class I recommendation and an easy call:

AHA/ACC said:
It is recommended that patients with clinically suspected moderate or greater degrees of valvular stenosis or regurgitation undergo preoperative echocardiography if there has been either 1) no prior echocardiography within 1 year or 2) a significant change in clinical status or physical examination since last evaluation.

What to do about asymptomatic arrythmias noticed in preop holding on DOS seems a little more fuzzy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
New onset arrhythmia on a patient getting elective surgery means cancel the case and get cardiology consult.
It's not because there is solid science to support this approach, but because most reasonable people don't enjoy dealing with malpractice lawyers and spending time in depositions being accused of incompetence. You will be blamed for any complication even if unrelated.
I agree with this. I think coffee has made excellent points and I can understand their reasoning. That being said, I think it has potential to flop if there was an issue that ended up in court. I would cancel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OP here, patient was seen by cardiology in clinic, here's copied from their plan:

Stable
Refer to discuss Watchman and ?ablation of Atrial flutter
Start Elliquis
Echo to r/o structural heart disease
Schedule DCCV in 4 weeks
Delay knee surgery till 2 weeks after cardioversion
Return 6 weeks
Oof watchman? Not indicated at all unless you just bought a new boat. Ablation is first line and curative for 90-95 of flutter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And that's when doctoring and risk stratifying the patients make a difference. These diagnosis and conditions are not a monolith. Any lab, test, study should be interpreted within the clinical context.

So I cancelled a case recently-- patient in preop holding for a cataract case. Late afternoon. The BP was normal-ish and passed the eyeball test. But was tachycardic to 150's, looked regular but no P-waves on tele monitor. Thought it looked like SVT and had him do some vagal maneuvers without effect. Did a 12-lead EKG that showed Aflutter with 2:1 conduction along with inferior and lateral ST-depressions. He had some occasional, vague symptoms of dyspnea, palpitations and chest discomfort going back a few weeks but did not seek evaluation. He has been taking all his medications including his BB. Review of prior EKGs showed recent months with NSR without ST/T abnormalities. Known CAD with CABG, AF s/p MAZE, MS, mod-severe AS, CHFpEF. Had similar presentation several years ago when he felt palpitations and fatigue, at the time also found to have Aflutter with 2:1 conduction and ST-depressions, and had a troponin elevation at the time. .. so we establish that this was NOT a new diagnosis of Aflutter. Maybe flips in and out occasionally. He saw his cardiologist 4 months ago, and I tried to reach the cardiologist but didn't get a call back. Ultimately sent patient to the ED.

Not a huge fan of cancelling cases, and especially not for uber low risk like cataract surgery, but **I couldn't rationalize proceeding with the case in a patient with RVR, and with ST-depressions of an undetermined duration**. Wasn't worried anything bad would happen in the surgery itself, and did consider giving IV BB or CCB to slow it down and just "do the case", but main concern is dispo after. I'm not sending a patient home with an uncontrolled HR and possible ischemia. I suppose medicine or cards could have seen patient in postop, but they might look at me funny if the patient's troponins were elevated. Would seem borderline ridiculous to send pt to ED after ambulatory surgery.

My thought process here. I'm sure could have been dealt with differently.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
So I cancelled a case recently-- patient in preop holding for a cataract case. Late afternoon. The BP was normal-ish and passed the eyeball test. But was tachycardic to 150's, looked regular but no P-waves on tele monitor. Thought it looked like SVT and had him do some vagal maneuvers without effect. Did a 12-lead EKG that showed Aflutter with 2:1 conduction along with inferior and lateral ST-depressions. He had some occasional, vague symptoms of dyspnea, palpitations and chest discomfort going back a few weeks but did not seek evaluation. He has been taking all his medications including his BB. Review of prior EKGs showed recent months with NSR without ST/T abnormalities. Known CAD with CABG, AF s/p MAZE, MS, mod-severe AS, CHFpEF. Had similar presentation several years ago when he felt palpitations and fatigue, at the time also found to have Aflutter with 2:1 conduction and ST-depressions, and had a troponin elevation at the time. .. so we establish that this was NOT a new diagnosis of Aflutter. Maybe flips in and out occasionally. He saw his cardiologist 4 months ago, and I tried to reach the cardiologist but didn't get a call back. Ultimately sent patient to the ED.

Not a huge fan of cancelling cases, and especially not for uber low risk like cataract surgery, but **I couldn't rationalize proceeding with the case in a patient with RVR, and with ST-depressions of an undetermined duration**. Wasn't worried anything bad would happen in the surgery itself, and did consider giving IV BB or CCB to slow it down and just "do the case", but main concern is dispo after. I'm not sending a patient home with an uncontrolled HR and possible ischemia. I suppose medicine or cards could have seen patient in postop, but they might look at me funny if the patient's troponins were elevated. Would seem borderline ridiculous to send pt to ED after ambulatory surgery.

My thought process here. I'm sure could have been dealt with differently.

Did the right thing. This is active cardiac condition. Easy cancel 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
So I cancelled a case recently-- patient in preop holding for a cataract case. Late afternoon. The BP was normal-ish and passed the eyeball test. But was tachycardic to 150's, looked regular but no P-waves on tele monitor. Thought it looked like SVT and had him do some vagal maneuvers without effect. Did a 12-lead EKG that showed Aflutter with 2:1 conduction along with inferior and lateral ST-depressions. He had some occasional, vague symptoms of dyspnea, palpitations and chest discomfort going back a few weeks but did not seek evaluation. He has been taking all his medications including his BB. Review of prior EKGs showed recent months with NSR without ST/T abnormalities. Known CAD with CABG, AF s/p MAZE, MS, mod-severe AS, CHFpEF. Had similar presentation several years ago when he felt palpitations and fatigue, at the time also found to have Aflutter with 2:1 conduction and ST-depressions, and had a troponin elevation at the time. .. so we establish that this was NOT a new diagnosis of Aflutter. Maybe flips in and out occasionally. He saw his cardiologist 4 months ago, and I tried to reach the cardiologist but didn't get a call back. Ultimately sent patient to the ED.

Not a huge fan of cancelling cases, and especially not for uber low risk like cataract surgery, but **I couldn't rationalize proceeding with the case in a patient with RVR, and with ST-depressions of an undetermined duration**. Wasn't worried anything bad would happen in the surgery itself, and did consider giving IV BB or CCB to slow it down and just "do the case", but main concern is dispo after. I'm not sending a patient home with an uncontrolled HR and possible ischemia. I suppose medicine or cards could have seen patient in postop, but they might look at me funny if the patient's troponins were elevated. Would seem borderline ridiculous to send pt to ED after ambulatory surgery.

My thought process here. I'm sure could have been dealt with differently.

I would not have blamed you for saying "not today" to this case.
 
HR 150 is automatic cancellation unless it is life threatening emergency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I had this exact scenario play out a few months ago. Shows up in holding with rate controlled Afib. No prior history. Called his cardiologist and he said there’s nothing to do and recommended to proceed.
So, I see these patients all the time and typically cancel them. But, over the decades 99% of them simply return after the "workup" being told they have LVH/LAE and now on Eliquis/Coumdain (not many in 2022?Aspirin). These meds are typically held for surgery.

As I get older and the years go bye, my thought process has changed a bit. Are we being too aggressive in cancelling these cases for minor surgery? If the patient has good exercise tolerance with great rate control, less than 80, should we do the case then refer to the Cardiologist? I really think some academic center outside the USA should study this to see if the complication rate is high enough to deserve cancellation.

In the USA, the vast majority of Anesthesiologists simply cancel the case for any new onset/undiagnosed A. Flutter/A Fib. But, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question that dogma in 2022 by asking where is the hard evidence that minor surgery/low risk surgery needs to be automatically cancelled without any further discussion.

For those taking their oral or written boards, the answer is CANCEL. For those who have been out there practicing for decades the answer is more grey than black and white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Discussion​

In this meta-analysis of 35 cohort studies, with more than 2.4 million participants, we observed that patients with new-onset POAF had 62% higher odds of early stroke or 44% higher odds of mortality compared with those without POAF; patients with new-onset POAF had 37% higher risk of long-term stroke and 37% higher risk of long-term mortality compared with those without POAF, and risk of long-term stroke was substantially higher among patients with new-onset POAF who received noncardiac surgery. All the studies included in our meta-analysis reported a multiple adjusted relative risk, which probably mitigated the possibility of known confounding influencing our results. Since studies enrolling patients with preexisting atrial fibrillation before operation were excluded, the detrimental effect was associated with new-onset POAF, rather than chronic atrial fibrillation

 

Discussion​

In this meta-analysis of 35 cohort studies, with more than 2.4 million participants, we observed that patients with new-onset POAF had 62% higher odds of early stroke or 44% higher odds of mortality compared with those without POAF; patients with new-onset POAF had 37% higher risk of long-term stroke and 37% higher risk of long-term mortality compared with those without POAF, and risk of long-term stroke was substantially higher among patients with new-onset POAF who received noncardiac surgery. All the studies included in our meta-analysis reported a multiple adjusted relative risk, which probably mitigated the possibility of known confounding influencing our results. Since studies enrolling patients with preexisting atrial fibrillation before operation were excluded, the detrimental effect was associated with new-onset POAF, rather than chronic atrial fibrillation

New Onsent vs Undiagnosed A. Fib? Comparing those with A. fib vs those without A Fib for risk doesn't adequately address the issue. The issue is whether the new onset A fib is at higher risk than the chronic A fib group for complications/stroke etc
 
New Onsent vs Undiagnosed A. Fib? Comparing those with A. fib vs those without A Fib for risk doesn't adequately address the issue. The issue is whether the new onset A fib is at higher risk than the chronic A fib group for complications/stroke etc

Real question is what caused the change
 
Top