{"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.
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.