JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow En Espanol
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (55)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Song, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Song, D.
Anesth Analg 1999;88:1069-1072
© 1999 International Anesthesia Research Society

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

New Criteria for Fast-Tracking After Outpatient Anesthesia: A Comparison with the Modified Aldrete's Scoring System

Paul F. White, PhD, MD, FANZCA, and Dajun Song, MD, PhD

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Paul F. White, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5161 Harry Hines Boulevard, CS 2. 282, Dallas, TX 75235-9068. Address e-mail to pwhite{at}mednet.swmed.edu


   Introduction
Top
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1
 References
 
The modified Aldrete's scoring system (1) is commonly used for determining when patients can be safely discharged from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) to either the postsurgical ward or to the second stage (Phase II) recovery area. Recently, these discharge criteria have also been used in the operating room (OR) to determine the fast-track eligibility of outpatients undergoing ambulatory surgery (2,3). Because fast-tracking in the ambulatory setting implies taking a patient from the OR directly to the less extensively monitored Phase II step-down unit, this scoring system may not be adequate after ambulatory procedures requiring general anesthesia because it fails to consider common side effects that have traditionally been treated in the PACU (e.g., pain, nausea, and vomiting). Therefore, a new fast-track scoring system that incorporates the essential elements of the modified Aldrete system, as well as an assessment of pain and emesis, has been proposed (4).

We hypothesized that using this new scoring system to determine a patient's fast-track eligibility would reduce the need for nursing interventions to administer parenteral medications in the Phase II recovery area. The times to fast-track eligibility were compared using the modified Aldrete and new fast-track criteria in outpatients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with one of three standardized general anesthetic techniques.


   Methods
Top
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1
 References
 
Recovery data from 216 consenting female outpatients undergoing either laparoscopic tubal ligation (LT) or cholecystectomy (LC) procedures at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas from January 1997 through July 1998 were analyzed. Patients without an evaluation of the modified Aldrete score and objective assessments of pain, nausea, and vomiting at 1-min intervals after discontinuation of the maintenance anesthetics, as well as those who failed to receive both preventative analgesic and prophylactic antiemetic medications, were excluded from the data analysis.

All patients were premedicated with midazolam 2 mg IV. Anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg IV and remifentanil 1 µg/kg IV (for LT) or with fentanyl 2 µg/kg IV (for LC). Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were facilitated with either succinylcholine 1 mg/kg IV (for LT) or with rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg IV (for LC). After tracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with one of the three anesthetics: desflurane 2%–8% (inspired), sevoflurane 0.6%–2.4% (inspired), or propofol 50–200 µg · kg -1 · min-1, in combination with nitrous oxide 67% in oxygen. Supplemental bolus doses of fentanyl 25–50 µg IV were administered for persistent hypertension or/and tachycardia that did not respond to increases in the dose of the maintenance anesthetic. Muscle relaxation was maintained with bolus doses of either mivacurium 0.04 mg/kg (for LT) or rocuronium 0.15 mg/kg IV (for LC). All patients received both analgesic and antiemetic prophylaxis with ketorolac 30 (for LT) to 60 (for LC) mg IV and droperidol 0.625 mg IV 15–30 min before the end of surgery.

Early recovery status was evaluated at 1-min intervals after discontinuation of the maintenance anesthetics using both the modified Aldrete scoring system (1) and the new fast-track scoring system (Appendix 1) (4). In calculating the fast-track score, the recorded visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, nausea, and vomiting (0 = none to 10 = maximal) were assigned a descriptive term. A VAS score <=3 was considered "mild," 4–7 represented "moderate," and >=8 was classified as "severe." Patients were considered fast-track–eligible if they achieved a score of 10 using the modified Aldrete scoring system or a score of >=12 (with no score <1 in any individual category) using the new scoring system. Times from discontinuation of the maintenance anesthetics to fast-track eligibility using the two scoring systems were recorded at 1-min intervals until 5 min after arrival in the PACU, and subsequently at 5-min intervals until the patient achieved fast-track eligibility using both scoring systems.

Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables and {chi}2 test for discrete variables. These data are expressed as means ± SD or percentages, with P values <0.05 considered statistically significant.


   Results
Top
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Appendix 1
 References
 
The patient demographic data and distribution of cases were similar in the three general anesthetic groups (Table 1). Compared with the modified Aldrete criteria, use of the new criteria required a significantly longer time period to achieve fast-track eligibility with both desflurane and sevoflurane, but not with propofol (Table 2). When using Aldrete's scoring system, the times from discontinuation of anesthesia to fast-track eligibility was significantly longer in patients receiving propofol (versus desflurane or sevoflurane) anesthesia, whereas there were no differences among the three anesthetic techniques when using the fast-track scoring system. On arrival in the PACU, the percentage of patients judged fast-track–eligible using the new criteria was also significantly lower in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups, but not in the propofol group, compared with using the modified Aldrete criteria (Table 2). A significantly higher percentage of patients judged fast-track–eligible using the modified Aldrete criteria subsequently required IV analgesics and antiemetics compared with that after fast-track eligibility was achieved using the new criteria (Fig. 1). None of the patients in any anesthetic group received parenteral medications other than IV analgesics and antiemetics after surgery.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic Characteristics in the Three Anesthetic Treatment Groups
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Time from Discontinuation of Anesthesia to Achieving Fast-Track Eligibility and the Number of Patients Being Judged Fast-Track–Eligible on Arrival in the Phase I Postanesthesia Care Unit
 


View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Percentage of patients requiring IV analgesics or antiemetics after being judged fast-track–eligible using either the modified Aldrete's criteria ({blacksquare}) or the fast-track criteria ({square}) in the three anesthetic treatment groups. *P < 0.05 versus modified Aldrete's criteria.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Appendix 1
 References
 
Fast-tracking outpatients after general anesthesia has assumed increased importance in ambulatory anesthesia because of the cost-savings potential when patients are transferred directly from the OR to the less labor-intensive Phase II recovery area (5,6). Given the inherent risks of complications associated with bypassing the PACU, effective and reliable fast-track criteria that would allow anesthesiologists to rapidly assess a patient's postoperative alertness, physiologic stability, and comfort level immediately before transferring the patient from the OR are clearly needed. In organizing a fast-tracking program, it is important to minimize postoperative side effects and to avoid increasing the workload for nurses in the Phase II recovery area. In a previous study (2), we determined that most nursing interventions in the PACU after laparoscopic surgery were related to the management of postoperative pain and emetic symptoms. Therefore, we used the need to administer parenteral analgesic and antiemetic medications after satisfying the PACU discharge (modified Aldrete) or fast-track criteria as a surrogate indicator of the need for additional nursing interventions in the Phase II unit had these patients actually been fast-tracked after surgery.

The modified Aldrete's scoring system is a highly acceptable criteria for discharging patients from the PACU. However, this scoring system was not designed to assess the patient's ability to bypass the PACU after major ambulatory procedures under general anesthesia. The results from this data evaluation demonstrated that 22%–29% of outpatients judged fast-track–eligible using the modified Aldrete scoring system subsequently required IV analgesics and antiemetics. Although these patients were fully oriented and had stable vital signs, they would have added to the workload of the Phase II nursing staff and may have necessitated the use of more extensive monitoring in the step-down unit. Although the new fast-track scoring system should be useful for determining which outpatients can safely bypass the PACU, these criteria were not designed for determining home-readiness after ambulatory surgery (7,8).

The new fast-track scoring system takes into consideration pain and emetic symptoms, as well as Aldrete's assessments of consciousness, physical activity, and hemodynamic and respiratory stability. Using the new fast-track criteria, significantly fewer outpatients would require IV medication for the management of pain and emesis in the step-down unit after laparoscopic surgery. Although the modified Aldrete scoring system provided a useful starting point in assessing the fast-tracking eligibility of patients in the ambulatory setting (2), using the new scoring system should help to limit the number of additional nursing interventions required in the step-down unit. Additional prospective clinical studies are required to validate the utility of this new scoring system in the clinical fast-track situation.

In conclusion, the new fast-track scoring system seems to offer advantages over the modified Aldrete's scoring system in evaluating the suitability of outpatients for bypassing the PACU after undergoing ambulatory surgery with general anesthesia.


   Appendix 1
Top
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1
References
 
Proposed fast-track criteria to determine whether outpatients can be transferred directly from the operating room to the step-down (Phase II) unit. A minimal score of 12 (with no score <1 in any individual category) would be required for a patient to be fast-tracked (i.e., bypass the postanesthesia care unit) after general anesthesia.

Go


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3.
 


   Acknowledgments
 
This work was supported by Ambulatory Anesthesia Research Foundation, Dallas, TX.


   References
Top
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1
 References
 

  1. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995;7:89–91.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Song D, Joshi GP, White PF. Fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia : a comparison of desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol. Anesth Analg 1998;86:267–73.[Abstract]
  3. Song D, van Vlymen J, White PF. Is the Bispectral Index useful in predicting fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol and desflurane? Anesth Analg 1998;87:1245–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. White PF. Criteria for fast-tracking outpatients after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth. In press.
  5. Lubarsky DA. Fast-track in the postanesthesia care unit : unlimited possibilities. J Clin Anesth 1996;8:70–2.
  6. Dexter F, Tinker J. Comparisons between desflurane and isoflurane or propofol on time to following commands and time to discharge : a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 1995;83:77–82.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Chung F, Chen VW, Ong D. A post-anesthetic discharge scoring system for home readiness after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995;7:500–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Chung F. Recovery pattern and home readiness after ambulatory surgery. Analg 1995;80:896–902.[Abstract]
Accepted for publication January 20, 1999.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. D. O'Donnell, H. Ryan, O. O'Sullivan, and G. Iohom
Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Block with 20 Milliliters Local Anesthetic Mixture Versus General Anesthesia for Upper Limb Trauma Surgery: An Observer-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2009; 109(1): 279 - 283.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
R. S. Twersky, S. Sapozhnikova, and B. Toure
Risk Factors Associated with Fast-Track Ineligibility After Monitored Anesthesia Care in Ambulatory Surgery Patients
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1421 - 1426.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
V. Collard, G. Mistraletti, A. Taqi, J. F. Asenjo, L. S. Feldman, G. M. Fried, and F. Carli
Intraoperative Esmolol Infusion in the Absence of Opioids Spares Postoperative Fentanyl in Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1255 - 1262.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. F. White, H. Kehlet, J. M. Neal, T. Schricker, D. B. Carr, F. Carli, and the Fast-Track Surgery Study Group
The Role of the Anesthesiologist in Fast-Track Surgery: From Multimodal Analgesia to Perioperative Medical Care
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1380 - 1396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. Zohar, Y. Noga, U. Rislick, I. Leibovitch, and B. Fredman
Intrathecal Anesthesia for Elderly Patients Undergoing Short Transurethral Procedures: A Dose-Finding Study
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2007; 104(3): 552 - 554.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Hadzic, B. Kerimoglu, D. Loreio, P. E. Karaca, R. E. Claudio, M. Yufa, R. Wedderburn, A. C. Santos, and D. M. Thys
Paravertebral Blocks Provide Superior Same-Day Recovery over General Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair.
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2006; 102(4): 1076 - 1081.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
L. H. J. Eberhart, F. Doderlein, G. Eisenhardt, P. Kranke, D. I. Sessler, A. Torossian, H. Wulf, and A. M. Morin
Independent Risk Factors for Postoperative Shivering
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2005; 101(6): 1849 - 1857.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
J. Millar
Editorial II: Fast-tracking in day surgery. Is your journey to the recovery room really necessary?
Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2004; 93(6): 756 - 758.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
D. Song, F. Chung, M. Ronayne, B. Ward, S. Yogendran, and C. Sibbick
Fast-tracking (bypassing the PACU) does not reduce nursing workload after ambulatory surgery
Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2004; 93(6): 768 - 774.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A.-M. Korhonen, J. V. Valanne, R. M. Jokela, P. Ravaska, and K. T. Korttila
A Comparison of Selective Spinal Anesthesia with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and General Anesthesia with Desflurane for Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2004; 99(6): 1668 - 1673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. F. White, B. Wang, J. Tang, R. H. Wender, R. Naruse, and A. Sloninsky
The Effect of Intraoperative Use of Esmolol and Nicardipine on Recovery After Ambulatory Surgery
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2003; 97(6): 1633 - 1638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
R. W. Eshima, A. Maurer, T. King, B.-K. Lin, J. E. Heavner, M. S. Bogetz, and A. D. Kaye
A Comparison of Airway Responses During Desflurane and Sevoflurane Administration via a Laryngeal Mask Airway for Maintenance of Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2003; 96(3): 701 - 705.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
B. Sennaraj, D. Shende, S. Sadhasivam, S. Ilavajady, and D. Jagan
Management of post-strabismus nausea and vomiting in children using ondansetron: a value-based comparison of outcomes{dagger}
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2002; 89(3): 473 - 478.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Fredman, O. Sheffer, E. Zohar, I. Paruta, S. Richter, R. Jedeikin, and P. F. White
Fast-Track Eligibility of Geriatric Patients Undergoing Short Urologic Surgery Procedures
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2002; 94(3): 560 - 564.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
V. W. S. Chan, P. W. H. Peng, Z. Kaszas, W. J. Middleton, R. Muni, D. G. Anastakis, and B. A. Graham
A Comparative Study of General Anesthesia, Intravenous Regional Anesthesia, and Axillary Block for Outpatient Hand Surgery: Clinical Outcome and Cost Analysis
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2001; 93(5): 1181 - 1184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Ben-David, P. J. DeMeo, C. Lucyk, and D. Solosko
A Comparison of Minidose Lidocaine-Fentanyl Spinal Anesthesia and Local Anesthesia/Propofol Infusion for Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy
Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2001; 93(2): 319 - 325.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Coloma, T. Zhou, P. F. White, S. D. Markowitz, and J. E. Forestner
Fast-Tracking After Outpatient Laparoscopy: Reasons for Failure After Propofol, Sevoflurane, and Desflurane Anesthesia
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2001; 93(1): 112 - 115.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
R. I. Patel, S. T. Verghese, R. S. Hannallah, A. Aregawi, and K. M. Patel
Fast-Tracking Children After Ambulatory Surgery
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2001; 92(4): 918 - 922.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Coloma, J. W. Chiu, P. F. White, and S. C. Armbruster
The Use of Esmolol as an Alternative to Remifentanil During Desflurane Anesthesia for Fast-Track Outpatient Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2001; 92(2): 352 - 357.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. Song, N. B. Greilich, P. F. White, M. F. Watcha, and W. K. Tongier
Recovery Profiles and Costs of Anesthesia for Outpatient Unilateral Inguinal Herniorrhaphy
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2000; 91(4): 876 - 881.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Coloma, J. W. Chiu, P. F. White, W. K. Tongier, L. L. Duffy, and S. C. Armbruster
Fast-Tracking After Immersion Lithotripsy: General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2000; 91(1): 92 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Coloma, P. F. White, P. J. Huber Jr., W. K. Tongier, K. K. Dullye, and L. L. Duffy
The Effect of Ketorolac on Recovery After Anorectal Surgery: Intravenous Versus Local Administration
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2000; 90(5): 1107 - 1110.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. F. White
Ambulatory Anesthesia Advances into the New Millennium
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2000; 90(5): 1234 - 1235.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow En Espanol
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (55)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Song, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Song, D.

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press