Risk Prediction Models for Management of Patients following Acute Aortic Dissection.

Q3 Medicine AORTA Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1756671
Wahaj Munir, Mohamad Bashir, Mohammed Idhrees, Wael I Awad
{"title":"Risk Prediction Models for Management of Patients following Acute Aortic Dissection.","authors":"Wahaj Munir,&nbsp;Mohamad Bashir,&nbsp;Mohammed Idhrees,&nbsp;Wael I Awad","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risk prediction of adverse outcomes post aortic dissection is dependet not only on the postdissection-associated clinical factors but on the very foundation of the risk factors that lead up to the dissection itself. There are various such risk factors existing prior to the dissection which impact the postdissection outcomes. In this paper, we review the literature to critically analyze various risk models, burdened by their significant limitations, that attempt to stratify risk prediction based on postdissection patient characteristics. We further review several studies across the literature that investigate the diverse set of predissection risk factors impacting postdissection outcomes. We have discussed and appraised numerous studies which attempt to develop a tool to stratify risk prediction by incorporating the impacts of different factors: malperfusion, blood biochemistry, and perioperative outcomes. The well-validated Penn classification has clearly demonstrated in the literature the significant impact that malperfusion has on adverse outcomes postdissection. Other risk models, already severely hindered by their limitations, lack such validation. We further discuss additional alluded risk factors, including the impact of predissection aortic size, the syndromic and nonsyndromic natures of dissection, and the effects of family history and genetics, which collectively contribute to the risk of adverse outcomes postdissection and prognosis. To achieve the goal of a true risk model, there remains the vital need for appreciation and appropriate consideration for all such aforementioned factors, from before and after the dissection, as discussed in this paper. By being able to incorporate the value of true risk prediction for a patient into the decision-making framework, it will allow a new page of precision medical decision-making to be written.</p>","PeriodicalId":52392,"journal":{"name":"AORTA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9754882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AORTA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Risk prediction of adverse outcomes post aortic dissection is dependet not only on the postdissection-associated clinical factors but on the very foundation of the risk factors that lead up to the dissection itself. There are various such risk factors existing prior to the dissection which impact the postdissection outcomes. In this paper, we review the literature to critically analyze various risk models, burdened by their significant limitations, that attempt to stratify risk prediction based on postdissection patient characteristics. We further review several studies across the literature that investigate the diverse set of predissection risk factors impacting postdissection outcomes. We have discussed and appraised numerous studies which attempt to develop a tool to stratify risk prediction by incorporating the impacts of different factors: malperfusion, blood biochemistry, and perioperative outcomes. The well-validated Penn classification has clearly demonstrated in the literature the significant impact that malperfusion has on adverse outcomes postdissection. Other risk models, already severely hindered by their limitations, lack such validation. We further discuss additional alluded risk factors, including the impact of predissection aortic size, the syndromic and nonsyndromic natures of dissection, and the effects of family history and genetics, which collectively contribute to the risk of adverse outcomes postdissection and prognosis. To achieve the goal of a true risk model, there remains the vital need for appreciation and appropriate consideration for all such aforementioned factors, from before and after the dissection, as discussed in this paper. By being able to incorporate the value of true risk prediction for a patient into the decision-making framework, it will allow a new page of precision medical decision-making to be written.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性主动脉夹层患者处理的风险预测模型。
主动脉夹层后不良后果的风险预测不仅依赖于夹层后相关的临床因素,而且依赖于导致夹层本身的危险因素的基础。在分离之前存在各种这样的危险因素,这些因素会影响分离后的结果。在本文中,我们回顾文献,批判性地分析各种风险模型,由于其显著的局限性,这些模型试图根据解剖后患者的特征对风险预测进行分层。我们进一步回顾了文献中的几项研究,这些研究调查了影响分离后结果的各种分离前危险因素。我们已经讨论和评估了许多研究,这些研究试图开发一种工具,通过结合不同因素的影响来分层风险预测:灌注不良、血液生化和围手术期结果。经过充分验证的Penn分类已经在文献中清楚地证明了灌注不良对解剖后不良结局的显著影响。其他风险模型已经受到自身局限性的严重阻碍,缺乏这样的验证。我们进一步讨论了其他隐含的危险因素,包括夹层前主动脉尺寸的影响、夹层的综合征和非综合征性质、家族史和遗传的影响,这些因素共同导致了夹层后不良结局和预后的风险。为了实现真正的风险模型的目标,正如本文所讨论的,从解剖之前和之后,仍然非常需要对所有上述因素进行评估和适当考虑。通过将病人真实风险预测的价值纳入决策框架,它将为精准医疗决策书写新的一页。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AORTA
AORTA Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
119
期刊最新文献
Hybrid Treatment of Complex Para-anastomotic Aortic Arch Pseudoaneurysm. Floating Thrombus in the Aortic Arch: Rare Images. The Fate of Conventional Elephant Trunk in the Frozen Elephant Trunk Era. Ruptured Mycotic Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm in the Setting of Streptococcus Bacteremia with Underlying Colonic Malignancy. Milestone Operations in Heart Valve and Aortic Replacement: Anniversaries Worth Remembering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1