Correspondence  |   January 2018
In Reply
Author Notes
  • Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  • (Accepted for publication September 28, 2017.)
    (Accepted for publication September 28, 2017.)×
Article Information
Correspondence   |   January 2018
In Reply
Anesthesiology 1 2018, Vol.128, 226. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001948
Anesthesiology 1 2018, Vol.128, 226. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001948
I thank Drs. Avidan and Weiniger for their comments on my article.1  Their suggestion and use of the acronym KISS (keep it simple stupid) summarizes the point of my editorial much more succinctly than my two pages. I could not agree more with them that adding nonvalidated examples to a simple, “commonsense” categorization may hobble the time-honored utility and universal use of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System. I smiled when I saw the veterinary reference in their letter. I had originally referenced a study using the ASA classification in veterinary anesthesia but removed it due to space constraints.2  Anesthesiologists need to be extremely cautious before altering a tool as far-reaching and surprisingly robust as the ASA classification in the practice of medicine, even across genera.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
BobbieJean Sweitzer, M.D., F.A.C.P., Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Sweitzer, B Three wise men (×2) and the ASA-Physical Status Classification System. Anesthesiology 2017; 126:577–8 [Article] [PubMed]
McMillan, M, Brearley, J Assessment of the variation in American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification assignment in small animal anaesthesia. Vet Anaesth Analg 2013; 40:229–36 [Article] [PubMed]