Analysis of current mortality risk scores for acute type A aortic dissection: The Siena experience.

IF 0.7 Q3 Medicine ASIAN CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC ANNALS Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-05 DOI:10.1177/02184923241230344
Veronica Lorenz, Luigi Muzzi, Eugenio Neri
{"title":"Analysis of current mortality risk scores for acute type A aortic dissection: The Siena experience.","authors":"Veronica Lorenz, Luigi Muzzi, Eugenio Neri","doi":"10.1177/02184923241230344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In literature, various risk scores have been described to predict in-hospital mortality of patients undergoing surgery for acute type A dissection. We want to evaluate which factors are most correlated with a negative outcome and testing the validity of the current scores in literature analyzing our experience of over 20 years in the surgery of type A aortic dissections.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 324 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to 30-day survival or mortality. The preoperative variables analyzed are the parameters necessary for the calculation of scores: Penn Classification, Leipzig Halifax and adjusted Leipzig Halifax score, GERAADA score and EuroSCORE II. Intra- and post-operative mortality were 10.2% and 17.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the preoperative predictors of 30-day mortality were age greater than 70 years, low eject fraction levels, visceral and coronary malperfusion. Both GERAADA and EuroSCORE II were statistically significant predictors of 30-day mortality. However, EuroSCORE II underestimates the mortality compared to GERAADA score probably due to the lack of evaluation of fundamental preoperative factors in the course of type A aortic dissection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study has demonstrated the efficacy of the GERAADA score in predicting the outcome of patients undergoing surgery and the underestimation of the mortality of EuroSCORE II in our population.</p>","PeriodicalId":35950,"journal":{"name":"ASIAN CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC ANNALS","volume":" ","pages":"116-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASIAN CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC ANNALS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02184923241230344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In literature, various risk scores have been described to predict in-hospital mortality of patients undergoing surgery for acute type A dissection. We want to evaluate which factors are most correlated with a negative outcome and testing the validity of the current scores in literature analyzing our experience of over 20 years in the surgery of type A aortic dissections.

Materials and methods: A total of 324 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to 30-day survival or mortality. The preoperative variables analyzed are the parameters necessary for the calculation of scores: Penn Classification, Leipzig Halifax and adjusted Leipzig Halifax score, GERAADA score and EuroSCORE II. Intra- and post-operative mortality were 10.2% and 17.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the preoperative predictors of 30-day mortality were age greater than 70 years, low eject fraction levels, visceral and coronary malperfusion. Both GERAADA and EuroSCORE II were statistically significant predictors of 30-day mortality. However, EuroSCORE II underestimates the mortality compared to GERAADA score probably due to the lack of evaluation of fundamental preoperative factors in the course of type A aortic dissection.

Results: The study has demonstrated the efficacy of the GERAADA score in predicting the outcome of patients undergoing surgery and the underestimation of the mortality of EuroSCORE II in our population.

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 A 型主动脉夹层目前的死亡风险评分分析:锡耶纳经验
目的:文献中描述了各种风险评分来预测接受急性A型主动脉夹层手术患者的院内死亡率。我们希望通过分析自己 20 多年来在 A 型主动脉夹层手术中的经验,评估哪些因素与不良预后最相关,并检验目前文献中的评分是否有效:研究共纳入 324 名患者。根据 30 天存活率或死亡率将患者分为两组。分析的术前变量是计算评分所需的参数:佩恩分类、莱比锡哈利法克斯评分和调整后的莱比锡哈利法克斯评分、GERAADA评分和EuroSCORE II。术中和术后死亡率分别为10.2%和17.5%。在多变量分析中,术前预测30天死亡率的因素包括年龄大于70岁、低射血分数水平、内脏和冠状动脉灌注不良。GERAADA 和 EuroSCORE II 对 30 天死亡率的预测均具有统计学意义。然而,与 GERAADA 评分相比,EuroSCORE II 低估了死亡率,这可能是由于缺乏对 A 型主动脉夹层过程中术前基本因素的评估:结果:该研究证明了 GERAADA 评分在预测手术患者预后方面的有效性,以及 EuroSCORE II 低估了我国人群的死亡率。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: The Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals is an international peer-reviewed journal pertaining to cardiovascular and thoracic medicine. Besides original clinical manuscripts, we welcome research reports, product reviews, reports of new techniques, and findings of special significance to Asia and the Pacific Rim. Case studies that have significant novel original observations, are instructive, include adequate methodological details and provide conclusions. Workshop proceedings, meetings and book reviews, letters to the editor, and meeting announcements are encouraged along with relevant articles from authors.
期刊最新文献
Impact of preoperative computed tomography scan on neurological outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting patients: A propensity-score analysis. Successful repair of infracardiac total anomalous pulmonary venous connection with nonconfluent bilateral pulmonary veins. Outcomes of fenestration versus none in extracardiac total cavopulmonary connection. Accidental finding of ALCAPA in a child with severe mitral regurgitation: A case study. Coronary arteriovenous fistula originating from the left coronary artery and draining into the superior vena cava.
×
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