Comparison of 4 mortality scores for surgical repair of type A aortic dissection: a multicentre external validation

F Pollari* (Erstautor/-in), P Nardi, E Mikus, F Ferraro, M Gemelli, I Franzese, I Chirichilli, C Romagnoni, G Santarpino (Co-Autor/-in), S Nicolardi, R Scrofani, F Musumeci, E Mazzaro, G Gerosa, M Massetti, C Savini, G Ruvolo, M Di Mauro, L Di Marco, F BariliA Parolari, T Fischlein (Co-Autor/-in), C Trumello, F Nicolo, S Sponga, M Cuomo (Co-Autor/-in), A Salsano, A Lechiancole, M Russo, F Rosato

*Korrespondierende/r Autor/-in für diese Arbeit

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftOriginalarbeitBegutachtung

6 Quellenangaben (Web of Science)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES In the last decades, 4 different scores for the prediction of mortality following surgery for type A acute aortic dissection (TAAD) were proposed. We aimed to validate these scores in a large external multicentre cohort.METHODS We retrospectively analysed patients who underwent surgery for TAAD between 2000 and 2020. Patients were enrolled from 10 centres from 2 European countries. Outcomes were the early (30-day and/or in-hospital) and 1-year mortality. Discrimination, calibration and observed/expected (O/E) ratio were evaluated.RESULTS A total of 1895 patients (31.7% females, mean age 63.72 +/- 12.8 years) were included in the study. Thirty-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were 21.7% (n = 412) and 22.5% (n = 427) respectively. The German Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A (GERAADA) score shows to have the best discrimination [area under the curve (AUC) 0.671 and 0.672] in predicting as well the early and the 1-year mortality, followed by the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) model 1 (AUC 0.658 and 0.672), the Centofanti (AUC 0.645 and 0.66) and the UK aortic score (AUC 0.549 and 0.563). According to Hosmer-Lemeshow and Brier tests, the IRAD model I and GERAADA, respectively, were well calibrated for the early mortality, while the GERAADA and Centofanti for the 1-year mortality. The O/E analysis showed a marked underestimation for patients labelled as low-risk for UK aortic score and IRAD model I for both outcomes.CONCLUSIONS The GERAADA score showed the best performance in comparison with other scores. However, none of them achieved together a fair discrimination and a good calibration for predicting either the early or the 1-year mortality. Although the clear survival advantage in those patients who receive an emergency treatment, and the technological and anesthesiology improvements of last years, the surgical treatment of the type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is still burdened by a high mortality (16.9-23.9%) and morbidity rate [1-3], as well as a high resource consumption.
OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummerezae005
Seitenumfang7
FachzeitschriftEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
Jahrgang65
Ausgabenummer2
DOIs
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 Feb. 2024

Fingerprint

Untersuchen Sie die Forschungsthemen von „Comparison of 4 mortality scores for surgical repair of type A aortic dissection: a multicentre external validation“. Zusammen bilden sie einen einzigartigen Fingerprint.

Dieses zitieren