Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice

A Sankar, S R Johnson, W S Beattie, G Tait, D N Wijeysundera, A Sankar, S R Johnson, W S Beattie, G Tait, D N Wijeysundera

Abstract

Background: Previous studies, which relied on hypothetical cases and chart reviews, have questioned the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status (ASA-PS) scale. We therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate its inter-rater reliability and validity in clinical practice.

Methods: The cohort included all adult patients (≥18 yr) who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery at a quaternary-care teaching institution in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from March 2010 to December 2011. We assessed inter-rater reliability by comparing ASA-PS scores assigned at the preoperative assessment clinic vs the operating theatre. We also assessed the validity of the ASA-PS scale by measuring its association with patients' preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes.

Results: The cohort included 10 864 patients, of whom 5.5% were classified as ASA I, 42.0% as ASA II, 46.7% as ASA III, and 5.8% as ASA IV. The ASA-PS score had moderate inter-rater reliability (κ 0.61), with 67.0% of patients (n=7279) being assigned to the same ASA-PS class in the clinic and operating theatre, and 98.6% (n=10 712) of paired assessments being within one class of each other. The ASA-PS scale was correlated with patients' age (Spearman's ρ, 0.23), Charlson comorbidity index (ρ=0.24), revised cardiac risk index (ρ=0.40), and hospital length of stay (ρ=0.16). It had moderate ability to predict in-hospital mortality (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.69) and cardiac complications (receiver-operating characteristic curve area 0.70).

Conclusions: Consistent with its inherent subjectivity, the ASA-PS scale has moderate inter-rater reliability in clinical practice. It also demonstrates validity as a marker of patients' preoperative health status.

Keywords: anaesthesiology; health status; reliability and validity.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Distribution of ASA-PS ratings in the operating theatre, within strata defined by ASA-PS rating in the preoperative assessment clinic.

References

    1. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941;2:281–4.
    1. Vogt AW, Henson LC. Unindicated preoperative testing: ASA physical status and financial implications. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9:437–41.
    1. Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. Medicare Benefits Schedule Book. Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
    1. Bjorgul K, Novicoff WM, Saleh KJ. American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status score may be used as a comorbidity index in hip fracture surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:134–7.
    1. Cullen DJ, Apolone G, Greenfield S, Guadagnoli E, Cleary P. ASA Physical Status and age predict morbidity after three surgical procedures. Ann Surg. 1994;220:3–9.
    1. Dalton JE, Kurz A, Turan A, Mascha EJ, Sessler DI, Saager L. Development and validation of a risk quantification index for 30-day postoperative mortality and morbidity in noncardiac surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:1336–44.
    1. Davenport DL, Bowe EA, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Mentzer RM., Jr National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk factors can be used to validate American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA PS) levels. Ann Surg. 2006;243:636–41.
    1. Glance LG, Lustik SJ, Hannan EL, et al. The surgical mortality probability model: derivation and validation of a simple risk prediction rule for noncardiac surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255:696–702.
    1. Han K-R, Kim HL, Pantuck AJ, Dorey FJ, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS. Use of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification to assess perioperative risk in patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2004;63:841–6.
    1. Hightower CE, Riedel BJ, Feig BW, et al. A pilot study evaluating predictors of postoperative outcomes after major abdominal surgery: physiological capacity compared with the ASA physical status classification system. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:465–71.
    1. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100:1043–9.
    1. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Chiravuri SD, et al. Does an objective system-based approach improve assessment of perioperative risk in children? A preliminary evaluation of the ‘NARCO’. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:352–8.
    1. Skaga NO, Eken T, Søvik S, Jones JM, Steen PA. Pre-injury ASA physical status classification is an independent predictor of mortality after trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2007;63:972–8.
    1. Vacanti CJ, VanHouten RJ, Hill RC. A statistical analysis of the relationship of physical status to postoperative mortality in 68,388 cases. Anesth Analg. 1970;49:564–6.
    1. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:217–22.
    1. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277:488–94.
    1. Aronson WL, McAuliffe MS, Miller K. Variability in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification scale. AANA J. 2003;71:265–74.
    1. Haynes SR, Lawler PG. An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:195–9.
    1. Mak PH, Campbell RC, Irwin MG. The ASA Physical Status Classification: Inter-observer consistency. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30:633–40.
    1. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL., Jr ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:239–43.
    1. Ranta S, Hynynen M, Tammisto T. A survey of the ASA physical status classification: significant variation in allocation among Finnish anaesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:629–32.
    1. Cuvillon P, Nouvellon E, Marret E, et al. American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status system: a multicentre Francophone study to analyse reasons for classification disagreement. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:742–7.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.
    1. Ellenberger C, Tait G, Beattie WS. Chronic beta blockade is associated with a better outcome after elective noncardiac surgery than acute beta blockade: a single-center propensity-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:817–23.
    1. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–9.
    1. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.
    1. Steiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th Edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Gilbert K, Larocque BJ, Patrick LT. Prospective evaluation of cardiac risk indices for patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:356–9.
    1. Gupta PK, Gupta H, Sundaram A, et al. Development and validation of a risk calculator for prediction of cardiac risk after surgery. Circulation. 2011;124:381–7.
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Shahian DM, Dimick JB, et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:777–82.
    1. Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009;250:363–76.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera