Skip to main content
Passa alla visualizzazione normale.

CALOGERA PISANO

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

  • Authors: Pollari Francesco; Nardi P; Mikus Elisa; Ferraro Francesco; Gemelli Marco; Franzese Ilaria; Chirichilli Ilaria; Romagnoni Claudia; Santarpino Giuseppe; Nicolardi Salvatore; Scrofani Roberto; Musumeci Francesco; Mazzaro Enzo; Gerosa Gino; Massetti Massimo; Savini Carlo; Ruvolo Giovanni; Di Mauro Michele; Di Marco Luca; Barili Fabio; Parolari Alessandro; Fischlein Theodor; Trumello Cinzia; Nicolò Francesca; Sponga Sandro; Cuomo Michela; Salsano Antonio; Lechiancole Andrea; Russo Marco; Rosato Francesco; Pisano Calogera; Bassano Carlo
  • Publication year: 2024
  • Type: Articolo in rivista
  • OA Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10447/634385

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.