ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2025
Practice Improvement Project: Developing a Platform for a Remote At-Home Preoperative Evaluation for Elective Noncardiac Procedures.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the feasibility, safety, and patient satisfaction associated with a remote cardiac evaluation protocol during a preanesthesia medical evaluation (PAME) before elective noncardiac surgical procedures. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients undergoing elective noncardiac procedures from May 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023 were selected from an anesthesia triage list at a single health care center. Patients received electronic devices for remote blood pressure measurement and 12-lead electrocardiogram collection. Patients either had a telemedicine-based PAME (tPAME) visit or an in-person PAME (iPAME) visit afterward. Patients' charts were reviewed 30 days after procedure to identify after procedure complications. Patients were asked to provide feedback about their experiences through a digital after procedure satisfaction survey. Comparisons between the tPAME group and the iPAME group were made with χ Results: Of 129 eligible patients, 48 (37.2%) participated in the study. 29 (60.4%) patients had an iPAME visit, and 19 (39.6%) patients had a tPAME visit. There were no major adverse cardiovascular events after a remote cardiac evaluation in the iPAME and the tPAME groups. One (3.4%) patient in the iPAME group developed a deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after procedure, and 1 (3.4%) patient in the iPAME group had an emergency room visit within 30 days after their procedure. Patients were very satisfied with their experience in the study. Conclusion: These findings support the concept that a remote cardiac evaluation during a PAME before elective noncardiac procedures is feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.