This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Olson, R. P. Articles by Lubarsky, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Olson, R. P. Articles by Lubarsky, D. Related Collections Ambulatory Blood Preoperative Evaluation

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

The Prevalence and Significance of Low Preoperative Hemoglobin in ASA 1 or 2 Outpatient Surgery Candidates

Departmentof Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke Health Technology Solutions, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ronald P. Olson, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3094, Durham, NC 277l0, Telephone 919 684 2025 Fax 919 681 8484, e-mail olson012{at}mc.duke.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Asymptomatic anemia in healthy patients undergoing low risk surgery is rare. In this retrospective study, we examined the records of 9584 ASA class I–II patients scheduled for elective low risk surgery who had a preoperative hemoglobin (hgb) test for the presence of anemia. Hgb <9 g/dL was detected in 75 patients (0.8%). Perioperative management of anemia occurred in no cases of elective surgery in this group. Transfusion of red cells occurred in four other patients, all of whom had hgb >9 g/dL. In all cases, management decisions were based on clinical factors rather than the preoperative hemoglobin test. In healthy patients undergoing low risk elective surgery, routine preoperative hgb testing is not indicated.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Several studies have shown that preoperative testing should be based on clinical examination rather than routine protocols (1–7). Two recent prospective studies have supported this general concept in elderly surgical patients and minimal-risk surgery on cataracts (8,9).

There is increasing realization that the perioperative period is not an appropriate setting for screening and investigating asymptomatic anemia (10–12). This is largely because the prevalence is infrequent except in neonates, the elderly, smokers, patients using anticoagulants, or patients with specific disease (12,13) and the likelihood of perioperative management of anemia is small (2,4).

We hypothesize that the prevalence of anemia of clinical interest by current practice in generally healthy outpatient surgical candidates is too infrequent to warrant routine screening. There has been no large study of the prevalence of anemia in this increasingly large proportion of surgical candidates, especially anemia as defined in currently practical terms. This retrospective study assesses the prevalence of anemia defined as hemoglobin (hgb) <9 g/dL and also examines whether the discovery of this level of anemia in asymptomatic outpatient surgical candidates results in any change in perioperative management.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Between January 1, 1997 and April 31, 1999, 21,080 outpatient surgical procedures were performed at Duke University Medical Center. This was a unique period when the required databases could be efficiently collated. After obtaining IRB approval, the resu1ts of the laboratory database, admission database, hospital electronic common data repository, and transfusion service’s database were analyzed. There were 14,337 patients who had preoperative hgb test results recorded in the hospital laboratory database within the 30 days before the surgical procedure as well as complete demographic data.

The laboratory database was analyzed to find all patients who had hgb 9 mg/dL. This threshold was selected as one at which even asymptomatic anemia might require treatment. The admission database was used to determine the ASA physical classification, age, and gender of all patients with a preoperative hgb 9 mg/dL. The prevalence of preoperative hgb levels 9 mg/dL in various subgroups of the 14,337 patients were calculated and compared. The electronic common data repository records of any of the above patients who were ASA class 1 or 2 with preoperative hgb 9 mg/dL were then examined to see if there was evidence of further anemia investigations or treatment. If there was insufficient information in the electronic record, the written hospital record was examined as well. Statistical comparisons of group proportions were made using Pearson’s ² test or Fisher’s exact test with small counts. Alpha <0.05 was considered significant.

The ASA classification was based only on information that would have been available preoperatively from the preoperative clinical assessment, paper medical record, and electronic medical record that included previous lab results and anesthetic records.

As an additional crosscheck, the transfusion service’s database was reviewed to see if any of these patients received blood products. As no therapy was apparently impacted by measuring the preoperative hgb in this subset of patients, zero numerator statistics give a 99% confidence interval that the chance of a hgb test result impacting management is at most 0.048% (14).

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Of the 14,337 surgical outpatients who had hgb tests, 9584 were ASA I–II. Seventy-five of these 9584 had hgb 9 g/dL, giving a prevalence of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6%–1.0%). In the ASA III patients, 138 of 3499 patients had hgb 9 g/dL, giving a prevalence of 3.9% (95% CI, 3.0%–4.9%). In the ASA IV patients, 18 of 205 patients had hgb 9 g/dL, giving a prevalence of 8.8% (95% CI, 5.3%–13.5%). All 3 pairwise comparisons showed Fisher’s exact P < 0.0032.

The prevalence of hgb 9 g/dL was slightly higher in females (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.7%–1.2%) than males (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%–0.9%) (P = 0.0340). When analyzed by age, the prevalence in patients aged <13 yr was 4.6%, which was significantly more than in patients aged >13 yr, where it was 1.6%. In the 66 infants <1 yr of age, the rate was 6.1%, although this was not significantly different from the rate of 4.4% in the 1–12 yr group.

Of the 75 ASA I–II patients with hgb 9 mg/dL, the average preoperative hgb was 8.3 g/dL with a standard deviation of 0.7 g/dL. The lowest was 5.6 g/L. The 4 patients with results <7 g/dL had clear indicators of potential anemia (advanced human immunodeficiency virus, sickle cell disease, or history of bleeding). It is questionable whether these individuals should have been classified as ASA II. There was no evidence of further investigation or perioperative treatment of anemia in these 75 patients undergoing elective surgery, including those with hgb <7 g/dL.

Review of the transfusion records showed that 4 of the 9584 ASA I–II patients (0.05%) received red blood cells on the same day or the day after the hgb test. All had hgb >9 g/dL. All had clear pretest clinical indictors of potential anemia. Three had a history of anemia, one was receiving heparin, and one had advanced cancer. There was no evidence that the decision to transfuse or any other perioperative management had occurred as a result of the preoperative hgb. Of these 9584 patients, 11 had received transfusions in the 6 mo before the procedure. Review of the medical records showed that in no case had a screening or preoperative hgb result been part of the decision to transfuse.

One other patient, initially classified as ASA II, was transfused postoperatively. She had sickle cell disease and had presented to the emergency department with increased vaginal bleeding; her hgb was <9 g/dL. She was reclassified as an ASA IIE and removed from the ASA I–II study group.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Recent changes in the perioperative hospitalization practices and transfusion thresholds have effectively resulted in a reduced prevalence of anemia requiring management, especially in the increasing proportion of patients who are basically healthy, asymptomatic with respect to anemia, and undergoing outpatient surgery. We sought to assess the prevalence of anemia in asymptomatic outpatient surgical candidates to see if routine hgb screening is warranted.

In previous times, surgery usually entailed significant risk of blood loss and physiological insult as well as a lengthy hospital admission. Most patients with a hgb <10 g/dL received a transfusion. Therefore, the prevalence of anemia that required transfusion was frequent and routine hgb testing was appropriate.

Today, many surgical procedures involve minimal risk. There has also been a change in transfusion thresholds. The National Institute of Health, American College of Physicians, and American Society of Anesthesiology consensuses state that transfusion is not necessarily indicated in a patient with a hgb as low as 7 g/dL if that patient is normovolemic, asymptomatic, and no further blood loss is anticipated (15–18).

Screening in low-prevalence groups yields so many false positives that a positive test is not useful information (10–12). Guidelines for anemia screening set by authoritative organizations state that it should only be done in high-risk infants once before the age of 9 months and in menstruating women every 5–10 years (13,19). If the prevalence of anemia in asymptomatic outpatient surgical candidates is similar to that in the general population, screening criteria should be similar to those recommended by these authorities. Unindicated hgb screening, especially without the clinical context and follow-up of primary care, exposes patients to the net negative effects of testing with little benefit.

It has been shown that actual follow-up of abnormal hgb results in the increasingly short perioperative period is quite rare (2,20). It has been stated that there is now more risk of litigation from not following up a test than from not ordering it (11,20–22). We agree.

In this study, we assessed the prevalence of hgb 9 mg/dL in healthy outpatient surgical candidates. This threshold was chosen as a balance between increasing evidence that the traditional transfusion threshold of hgb 10 mg/dL is no longer appropriate in asymptomatic patients, (15,16,18) and the concern of many clinicians to at least be monitoring hgb at levels slightly below the traditional one.

The prevalence of hgb 9 g/dL in ASA I–II patients in this study was only 0.8%. Generally, a prevalence of 1%–5% is needed to make screening beneficial (23–27). As an example, the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (hgb <13.5 g/dL) in adult males is 2%, and screening is not recommended for this group (13).

This study of 9584 such patients showed that only 4 had transfusions, and all of these patients had been expected based on information other than the preoperative hgb. Unexpected anemia requiring management is so rare in these patients that routine hgb testing has no benefit.

Routine laboratory tests cannot substitute for a clinical examination (1–9). But if there are any clinical indicators of potential anemia, including high-risk surgery or high-risk patients, then hgb testing is indicated. Clinical indicators of anemia are any feature of the patient history or examination that might lead one to suspect anemia. One such list is given in a recent textbook (21).

There are shortcomings of this study. It is possible that patients with low hgb results had surgery delayed and so were excluded from the sample or only entered the study after correction of anemia. This possibility would exist even if hgb results for all 21,080 patients were recorded. Analysis of the events leading up to the referral to surgery would be needed. That information was not reliably available in this study.

Only 14,337 of 21,080 outpatients (68%) had hgb tests performed within the 30 days before surgery. There is a possibility of selection bias, which excluded some cases of low hgb. However, all of the unmeasured patients proceeded to surgery without further testing, which would have been unlikely if there had been anemia concerns. In addition, analysis of the preoperative transfusions in the studied group showed that all transfusion decisions were based on historical information independent of screening hgb tests. This suggests that these test results are rarely part of management decisions.

More likely the bias is in the other direction, with the clinicians choosing to not order the test because of low probability of anemia or knowledge of previous outside test results showing normal levels. Thus the population studied likely had a more frequent incidence of abnormal hgb than the general ASA I–II outpatient surgical population. This would effectively increase the prevalence of anemia in our tested population, making the conclusions of this study even more valid in a less selected population.

Because 90% of the study population was between the ages of 13 and 79 years, conclusions cannot be applied to children or the very old.

This large study supports previous ones showing that selective testing based on the clinical examination is safe (4,28), avoids the drawbacks of false positives (1,7,21), and reduces unnecessary expense (1,6,7,28,29). The probability that preoperative hgb will impact on management is estimated to be <0.05%.

	Conclusion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
We conclude that asymptomatic hgb <9 g/dL in ASA I–II outpatient surgical candidates is rare. When it does occur, it is associated with clinical indicators. It does not result in any change in management. Routine preoperative hgb testing in these patients is not indicated.

	Footnotes

 
Accepted for publication May 12, 2005.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 

1. Allison JG, Bromley HR. Unnecessary preoperative investigations: evaluation and cost analysis. Am Surg 1996;62:686–9.[Medline]
2. Kaplan EB, Sheiner SB, Boeckmann AJ. The usefulness of preoperative laboratory screening. JAMA 1985;253:3576–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. McLeane GJ. Preoperative measurement of haemoglobin concentration. Ulster Medical J 1990;59:145–148.
4. Narr BJ, Warner ME, Schroeder DR, Warner MA. Outcomes of patients with no laboratory assessments before anesthesia and surgical procedures. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72L505–509.
5. Turnbull JM, Buck C. The value of preoperative screens investigations in otherwise healthy individuals. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1101–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Velanovitch V. The value of routine preoperative laboratory testing in predicting postoperative complications: a multivariate analysis. Surgery 1991;109:236–43.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Wyatt WJ, Reed DN, Apelgren KN. Pitfalls in the role of standardized preadmission laboratory screening for ambulatory surgery. Am Surg 1989;55:343–6.[Medline]
8. Dzankic S, Pastor D, Gonzalez C, Leung JM. The prevalence and predictive value of abnormal preoperative laboratory tests in elderly surgical patients. Anesth Analg 2001;93:301–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Schein OD, Katz J, Bass EB. The value of routine preoperative medical testing before cataract surgery. JAMA 2005;342:168–75.
10. Litaker D. Preoperative screening. Med Clin North Am 1999;83:1565–81.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. Marcello PW, Roberts PL. "Routine" preoperative studies. Which studies in which patients? Surg Clin North Am 1996;76:11–23.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. Pasternak LR. Preoperative assessment: guidelines and challenges. Acta Anesthesiologica Scandinavia 1997;S111:318–20.
13. Recommendations to prevent and control iron deficiency in the United States. MMWR 1998;44(RR-3):1–29.
14. Hanley J, Lippman-Hand A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA 1983;249:1743–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. American College of Physicians. Practice strategies for elective red blood cell transfusion. Ann Internal Med 1992;116:403–6.
16. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for blood component therapy. Anesthesiology 2005;84:732–47.
17. Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. N Engl J Med 1999;340:409–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. National Institutes of Health. Perioperative Red Cell Transfusion: NIH Consensus Statement Online. NIH Consensus Development Conference. 1988.
19. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
20. Golub R, Cantu R, Sorrento JJ, Stein HD. Efficacy of pre-admission testing in ambulatory surgical patients. Am J Surg 1992;163:565–71.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Roizen MF. Preoperative evaluation. In: Miller RD, ed. Miller’s anesthesia. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2005:927–98.
22. Smetana GW, Macpherson D. The case against routine preoperative laboratory testing. Med Clin North Am 2003;87:7–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;70:2444–50.
24. Ladenson PW, Singer PA, Ain KB. American Thyroid Association guidelines for detection of thyroid dysfunction. Arch Internal Med 2000;160:1573–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Patz EF, Goodman PC, Bepler G. Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1627–32.[Free Full Text]
28. Korvin CC, Pearce RH, Stanley J. Admissions screening: clinical benefits. Ann Internal Med 1975;83:197.
29. Nardella A, Pechet L, Snyder LM. Continuous improvement, quality control, and cost containment in clinical laboratory testing: effects of establishing and implementing guidelines for preoperative tests. Arch Path Lab Med 1995;119:518–22.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Chung, H. Yuan, L. Yin, S. Vairavanathan, and D. T. Wong Elimination of Preoperative Testing in Ambulatory Surgery Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2009; 108(2): 467 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W.-C. Wu, T. L. Schifftner, W. G. Henderson, C. B. Eaton, R. M. Poses, G. Uttley, S. C. Sharma, M. Vezeridis, S. F. Khuri, and P. D. Friedmann Preoperative Hematocrit Levels and Postoperative Outcomes in Older Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery JAMA, June 13, 2007; 297(22): 2481 - 2488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P. Olson and D. Lubarsky Anemia Screening in Elective Surgery: Definition, Significance and Patients' Interests Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2006; 103(3): 779 - 780. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Shander, M. Javidroozi, and L. T. Goodnough Anemia screening in elective surgery: definition, significance and patients' interests. Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2006; 103(3): 778 - 779. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Olson, R. P. Articles by Lubarsky, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Olson, R. P. Articles by Lubarsky, D. Related Collections Ambulatory Blood Preoperative Evaluation