A 25-year retrospective analysis of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification: did we “up-code” young obese patients when obesity was not yet considered a disease?

Reports of Original Investigations

Abstract

Purpose

The influence of obesity on anesthetic risk remains controversial, and obesity has only recently been specifically identified as a criterion by which a patient can be given a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status (ASA-PS) score. Nevertheless, we hypothesized that clinicians had assigned obese patients a greater ASA-PS score before obesity became an “official” criterion in 2015.

Methods

Basic demographic and physical details were collected on patients receiving anesthetics in the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System between 1986 and 2010. The risk ratio (RR) of “up-coding” ASA-PS classification assignments was calculated for patients of varying body mass index (BMI). We specifically focused on the subset of patients aged 20-29 yr in whom the medical sequelae of obesity would not yet likely be manifest.

Results

Among a total of 194,698 patients, the percentage who were obese increased from 20% to 39% between 1986 and 2010. Obese patients of all ages were more likely than non-obese patients to be classified as ASA-PS II-IV rather than ASA-PS I. The RR and ratio of RR analyses indicated a consistent pattern of up-coding patients with greater BMI (contingency table Chi-square: P < 0.001). Most notably, relative to patients with a normal BMI, young obese patients aged 20-29 yr had an increased likelihood of up-coding in ASA-PS compared with obese patients in the older cohorts.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a consistent and temporally stable practice of up-coding obese patients despite this lack of explicit guidance. The ASA House of Delegates’ recent decision to specifically mention obesity reinforces long-existing practices regarding ASA-PS coding and will likely not degrade the validity of data sets collected before the change.

Vingt-cinq ans de rétrospective sur la classification du statut physique selon l’American Society of Anesthesiologists : avons-nous « gonflé » le codage des jeunes patients obèses alors que l’obésité n’était pas encore considérée comme une maladie?

Résumé

Objectif

L’influence de l’obésité sur le risque anesthésique reste controversée. L’obésité n’a été spécifiquement considérée comme un critère permettant d’attribuer un score de statut physique de l’American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA-PS) plus élevé que récemment. Néanmoins, nous avons formulé l’hypothèse que les cliniciens avaient attribué aux patients obèses un score ASA-PS plus élevé avant même que l’obésité devienne un critère « officiel » en 2015.

Méthodes

Des caractéristiques démographiques et des détails physiques de base ont été collectés pour les patients recevant des anesthésiques entre 1986 et 2010 dans le Virginia Commonwealth University Health System. Le rapport de risque (RR) de « surcodage » des attributions de classification ASA-PS a été calculé pour des patients ayant divers indices de masse corporelle (IMC). Nous nous sommes concentrés sur le sous-groupe des patients âgés de 20 à 29 ans chez lesquels les conséquences médicales de l’obésité ne seraient vraisemblablement pas encore manifestes.

Résultats

Sur un total de 194 698 patients, le pourcentage d’obèses a augmenté de 20 % à 39 % entre 1986 et 2010. Les patients obèses de tous âges étaient plus susceptibles d’être classés ASA-PS II à IV plutôt qu’ASA-PS I, par comparaison aux patients non obèses. Les analyses du RR et du ratio de RR ont indiqué un profil constant de surcodage des patients ayant un IMC plus élevé (test du chi-2 appliqué au tableau de contingence : P < 0,001). Par rapport aux patients ayant un IMC normal, il était particulièrement évident que les jeunes patients obèses (âgés de 20 à 29 ans) étaient plus susceptibles d’avoir un score ASA-PS surélevé par rapport aux patients obèses des groupes d’âge plus élevés.

Conclusions

Ces constatations suggèrent une pratique constante et stable dans le temps consistant à surcoder les patients obèses en dépit d’une absence de recommandations explicites. La décision récente de la House of Delegates de l’ASA de mentionner spécifiquement l’obésité renforce ces pratiques déjà anciennes concernant le codage de l’ASA-PS et n’altérera probablement pas la validité de l’ensemble de données collectés avant ce changement.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Hilary P. Grocott, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

Author contributions

Christopher Guerry helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript. He has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, and approved the final manuscript. John F. Butterworth, IV, helped design the study, conduct the study, and write the manuscript. He has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, approved the final manuscript, and is the author responsible for archiving the study files.

Funding

Departmental funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Ament R. Origin of the ASA classification. Anesthesiology 1979; 51: 179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 1941; 2: 281-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dripps RD, Lamont A, Eckenhoff JE. The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 1961; 178: 261-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr. Tally of ASA classification responses. Anesthesiology 1979; 51: 181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2013; 309: 71-82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braz LG, Braz DG, Cruz DS, Fernandes LA, Módolo NS, Braz JR. Mortality in anesthesia: a systematic review. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2009; 64: 999-1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donati A, Ruzzi M, Adrario E, et al. A new and feasible model for predicting operative risk. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93: 393-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hampel FR, Ronchetti EM, Rousseeuw PJ, Stahel WA. Robust Statistics: The Approach Based on Influence Functions. John Wiley & Sons; 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mak PH, Campbell RC. Irwin MG; American Society of Anesthesiologists. The ASA physical status classification: inter-observer consistency. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30: 633-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Owens WD. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978; 49: 239-43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davenport DL, Bowe EA, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Mentzer RM. 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; discussion 641-4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hellerstein JM. Quantitative data cleaning for large databases. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 2008. Available from URL: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/papers/cleaning-unece.pdf (accessed January 2018).
  15. 15.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. Available from URL: https://www.asahq.org/resources/clinical-information/asa-physical-status-classification-system (accessed January 2018).
  16. 16.
    Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW Jr. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1097-105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stevens J, Jianwen C, Pamuk ER, Williamson DF, Thun MJ, Wood JL. The effect of age on the association between body-mass index and mortality. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    World Health Organization. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Available from URL: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/37003/1/WHO_TRS_854.pdf (accessed January 2018).
  19. 19.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003; 326: 219.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hutchon DJ. Calculations for comparing two estimated relative risks (online calculator). Available from URL: http://www.hutchon.net/CompareRR.htm (accessed January 2018).
  21. 21.
    Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, et al. National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9·1 million participants. Lancet 2011; 377: 557-67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flegal KM, Troiano RP. Changes in the distribution of body mass index of adults and children in the US population. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24: 807-18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Penman AD, Johnson WD. The changing shape of the body mass index distribution curve in the population: implications for public health policy to reduce the prevalence of adult obesity. Prev Chronic Dis 2006; 3: A74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Field AE, Coakley EH, Must A, et al. Impact of overweight on the risk of developing common chronic diseases during a 10-year period. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1581-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alexander JK. Obesity and coronary heart disease. Am J Med Sci 2001; 321: 215-24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein S, Burke LE, Bray GA, et al. Clinical implications of obesity with specific focus on cardiovascular disease: a statement for professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation 2004; 110: 2952-67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guh DP, Zhang W, Bansback N, Amarsi Z, Birmingham CL, Anis AH. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheah MH, Kam PC. Obesity: basic science and medical aspects relevant to anaesthetists. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1009-21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sahakyan KR, Somers VK, Rodriguez-Escudero JP, et al. Normal-weight central obesity: implications for total and cardiovascular mortality. Ann Int Med 2015; 163: 827-35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tjeertes EK, Hoeks SE, Beks SB, et al. Obesity - a risk factor for postoperative complications in general surgery? BMC Anesthesiol 2015; 15: 112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barbeito A, Muir HA, Gan TJ, et al. Use of a modifier reduces inconsistency in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification in parturients. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 1231-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keats AS. The ASA classification of physical status-a recapitulation. Anesthesiology 1978; 49: 233-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sidi A, Lobato EB, Cohen JA. The American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status: category V revisited. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 328-34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolters U, Wolf T, Stützer H, Schröder T. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77: 217-22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Visnejevac O, Davari-Farid S, Lee J, et al. The effect of adding functional classification to ASA status for predicting 30-day mortality. Anesth Analg 2015; 121: 110-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, VCURichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations