Differentiated approach to preoperative preparation of patients with various cardiovascular risk in locally advanced cancer of abdominal organs: experimental study

INTRODUCTION. Malignant neoplasms of the abdominal organs often lead to exacerbation of cardiovascular diseases or trigger their development. Only proper evaluation of cardiovascular risk allows to effectively prepare for the operation, to choose best option of surgery and to decrease the likelihood of complications in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVE. To study the possibility of a differentiated approach to additional preoperative preparation in the surgical treatment of locally advanced cancer of the abdominal organs in patients with different degrees of cardiovascular risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The first stage included retrospective result analysis of planned surgical treatment of 250 patients under the standard approach to pre-operative examination and preparation. At the second stage, 101 patients were tested a modified algorithm of additional preoperative examination where there was emphasis on persons with an average cardiovascular risk. The observation period did not exceed 30 days. The stratification of perioperative cardiovascular risk was conducted by RCRI and NSQIP-MICA index calculation. Statistical processing of the results was carried out using “Statistica 12.5” application packages (StatSoft, USA).

RESULTS. The standard approach to preoperative preparation was characterized by relatively high mortality in the early postoperative period (18,4%). Most deaths (54,3% on RCRI scale and 69,5% on NSQIP-MICA scale) were among patients of an average cardiovascular risk. Differentiated algorithm implementation of additional preoperative examination has reduced the incidence of postoperative complications by 2,1-5,9 times, the duration of the patient’s stay in intensive care by 1,4 times and hospital mortality by 2,3 times (up to 7,9%).

DISCUSSION. The proposed algorithm is focused on the most problematic subgroup of patients with an average cardiovascular risk (1 risk factor on RCRI scale and/or decreased (indefinite) functional status) which, in standard preparation for surgery, have the same chance of an adverse outcome as persons with high comorbidity.

CONCLUSION. The use of validated methods in evaluating perioperative risk, differentiated approach to additional examination and rational pharmacotherapy reduce hospital mortality in patients with locally advanced cancer of the abdominal organs.

marine medicine, cardiovascular risk, non-cardiac surgery, hospital mortality, perioperative complications, preoperative preparation, abdominal cancer, surgical treatment, cardiac oncology

1. Bejanyan A.L. Surgical treatment of elderly and senile cancer patients with concomitant cardiovascular pathology // Clinical and experimental surgery. Journal named after Academician B.V. Petrovsky, 2020, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 35-42 (in Russ.).

2. [Izmailov A.G., Dobrokvash-in S.V., Volkov D.E., et al. The concept of prevention and treatment of postoperative wound complications in surgical patients // Practical medicine, 2017, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 50-54 (in Russ.)].

3. Zabolotskikh I.B., Trembach N.V., Magomedov M.A., et al. Possibilities of preoperative assessment of the risk of an unfavorable out-come of abdominal operations: preliminary results of the STOPRISK multicenter study // Bulletin of Intensive Care named after A.I. Saltanov, 2020, No. 4, pp. 12-27 (in Russ.).

4. Kotova D.P., Kotov S.V. Features of postoperative complications of therapeutic profile during surgical interventions of different complexity // Medical business, 2020, No. 3, pp. 52-59 (in Russ.).

5. International Surgical Outcomes Study group. Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries // Brit-ish Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017. Vol. 119, No 3. P. 553. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew472.

6. Herrmann J. From trends to transformation: where cardio-oncology is to make a differ-ence // European Heart Journal. 2019. Vol. 40, No 48. P. 3898-3900. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz781

7. Imaev T. E., Komlev A. E., Akchurin R. S. Surgery of the heart and blood vessels in cancer patients – a new challenge of hybrid surgery // Cardiovascular surgery and prevention, 2019, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 99-104 (in Russ.).

8. Kristensen S., Knuuti J., Saraste A., et al. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management // European Heart Journal. 2014. Vol. 35, No 41. P. 2873-2926. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281

9. Alrezk R., Jackson N., Al Rezk M., et al. Derivation and Validation of a Geriatric-Sensitive Perioperative Cardiac Risk Index. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2017. Vol. 11, No 6. P. e006648. DOI: 10.1161/jaha.117.006648

10. Sokolov D.A., Lyuboshevsky P.A., Staroverov I.N., et al. Posthospital cardiovascular complications in patients who under-went cardiac surgery // Bulletin of Anesthesiology and resuscitation, 2021, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 62-72 (in Russ.).

11. Kuchev R.D., Shulenin K.S., Soloviev I.A., et al. Com-parison of the results of preoperative assessment of cardiovascular risk and outcomes of surgical interventions for locally advanced abdominal cancer // Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 727-736 (in Russ.).

12. Smilowitz N., Berger J. Рerioperative cardiovascular risk assessment and management for noncardiac surgery // Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020. Т. 324, No 3. Рр. 279. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.7840

13. Jammer I., Wickboldt N., Sander M., et al. Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine // European Jour-nal of Anaesthesiology. 2015. Vol. 32, No 2. P. 88-105. DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000000118

14. Jammer I., Wickboldt N., Sander M., et al. Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine // European Jour-nal of Anaesthesiology. 2015. Vol. 32, No 2. P. 88-105. DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000000118

15. Cohn S., Fernandez Ros N. Comparison of 4 cardiac risk calculators in predicting post-operative cardiac complications after noncardiac operations // The American Journal of Cardiology. 2018. Vol. 121, No 1. Р. 125-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.031

16. Malkova M.I., Balashova O.V., Khazova E.V. Personalized approach to the assessment of perioperative risk in patients with cardiovascular pathology in the emergency clinic // Bulletin of Mod-ern Clinical Medicine, 2018, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 62-68 (in Russ.).

17. Halvorsen S., Mehilli J., Cassese S., et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular as-sessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: Developed by the task force for cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by the Eu-ropean Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) // European Heart Journal. 2022. Vol. 43, No 39. P. 3826-3924. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac270

18. Kotova D.P., Kotov S.V., Gilyarov M.Yu. et al. The use of prognostic scales in the assessment of perioperative complications in the practice of a general practitioner // Cardiovascular therapy and prevention, 2018, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 75-80 (in Russ.).

19. Dzhioeva O.N., Drapkina O.M. Postoperative atrial fibrillation as a risk factor for cardiovascular complications in extra-cardial surgical interventions // Cardiovascular therapy and prevention, 2020, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 112-118 (in Russ.).