• Kevin R Riggs, Terrance Shaneyfelt, Andrea L Cherrington, Jeffrey W Simmons, Fadi G Hage, Melanie S Morris, Stefan G Kertesz, and Joshua S Richman.
• From the Departments of Medicine.
• South. Med. J. 2023 Jul 1; 116 (7): 530534530-534.

ObjectivesEstimating cardiac risk is important for preoperative evaluation, and several risk calculators incorporate the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. The purpose of this study was to determine the concordance of ASA scores assigned by general internists and anesthesiologists and assess whether discrepancies affected cardiac risk estimation.MethodsThis observational study included military veterans evaluated in a preoperative evaluation clinic at a single center during a 12-month period. ASA scores were recorded by General Internal Medicine residents under the supervision of a General Internal Medicine attending, performing a preoperative medical consultation, and were compared with ASA scores assigned by an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery. ASA scores and Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores incorporating each ASA score were compared.ResultsData were collected on 206 patients, 163 of whom had surgery within 90 days and were included. ASA scores were concordant in 60 patients (37.3%), whereas the ASA scores were rated lower by the general internist in 101 (62.0%) and higher in 2 (1.2%). Interrater reliability was low (κ = 0.08), and general internist scores were significantly lower than anesthesiologist scores (P < 0.01). Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores were calculated for 160 patients, and they exceeded 1% in 14 patients using the anesthesiologist ASA score, compared with 5 patients using the general internist score.ConclusionsASA scores assigned by general internists in this study were significantly lower than those assigned by anesthesiologists, and these discrepancies in the ASA score can lead to substantially different conclusions about cardiac risk.

12 keywords...

hide…