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 retrospectively analysed patients who underwent surgery for TAAD between 2000 and 2020.pPatients 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.

Pollari, F., Nardi, P., Mikus, E., Ferraro, F., Gemelli, M., Franzese, I., et al. (2024). Comparison of 4 mortality scores for surgical repair of type A aortic dissection: a multicentre external validation. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 65(2) [10.1093/ejcts/ezae005].

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

Nardi P
Supervision
;
Ruvolo Giovanni;Pisano Calogera;Bassano Carlo
2024-01-01

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 retrospectively analysed patients who underwent surgery for TAAD between 2000 and 2020.pPatients 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.
2024
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Comitato scientifico
Settore MED/23
English
Aortic dissection
Long-term survival
Outcomes
Scores
Pollari, F., Nardi, P., Mikus, E., Ferraro, F., Gemelli, M., Franzese, I., et al. (2024). Comparison of 4 mortality scores for surgical repair of type A aortic dissection: a multicentre external validation. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 65(2) [10.1093/ejcts/ezae005].
Pollari, F; Nardi, P; Mikus, E; Ferraro, F; Gemelli, M; Franzese, I; Chirichilli, I; Romagnoni, C; Santarpino, G; Nicolardi, S; Scrofani, R; Musumeci, F; Mazzaro, E; Gerosa, G; Massetti, M; Savini, C; Ruvolo, G; Di Mauro, M; Di Marco, L; Barili, F; Parolari, A; Fischlein, T; Trumello, C; Nicolò, F; Sponga, S; Cuomo, M; Salsano, A; Lechiancole, A; Russo, M; Rosato, F; In, A; Pisano, C; Bassano, C
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
PDF 9_merged.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Descrizione: PDF pubblicazione
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.78 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.78 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/351937
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact