{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027921406411582212, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011375387797311272, 'mean_word_length': 5.065830721003135, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
P11 Variations in subjective and objective metabolic equivalents in patients undergoing aortic surgery


 
 
 Metabolic equivalents (METs) are measures of patient's functional capacity. It provides insight into patient's risk of perioperative complications. METs are usually obtained from estimation based on patient's history or by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). However, the validity of estimated METs has been questioned in multiple studies. In this study, we sought to compare the subjective METs from preoperative evaluation and objective METs derived from CPET, to investigate the reliability and validity of subjective METs.
 
 
 
 A retrospective study was carried out for patients scheduled for aortic surgery from March 2017 to September 2018. Patients were classified into 3 subjective categories: Poor (< 4 METs), Moderate (4–10 METs) and Good (> 10 METs), whereas objective METs values were obtained from CPET. Comparative analysis between patient's objective METs and subjective METs was carried out to identify any variations.
 
 
 
 Subjective METs correlate with objective METs. Although subjective METs tends to overestimate patient's functional capacity, leading to 44.4% misclassified in the Moderate category. In contrast, Poor category only misclassified 5% by underestimation. In addition, the results confirmed significant differences between the Moderate and Poor categories as expected.
 
 
 
 Although subjective METs categories correlate with objective METs, it tends to overestimate patient's METs. They are more accurate in identifying patients with Poor functional capacity (< 4 METs). Therefore, it is a convenient tool for clinician to effectively exclude patients with Poor METs. However, use of subjective METs should be considered carefully due to its limitation in estimating Moderate or Good METs.
 
 
 
 Subjective metabolic equivalents correlate with objective metabolic equivalents.
