Objective scoring systems of medical risk: a clinical tool for selecting patients for open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
- PMID: 17543670
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.036
Objective scoring systems of medical risk: a clinical tool for selecting patients for open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
Abstract
Background: Objective scoring systems have been developed for risk stratification of open infrarenal aneurysm repair. To date, none have been applied for the selection of patients who would most benefit from either an open or an endovascular approach. This study assessed the utility of comorbidity-based objective scoring systems for defining subgroups of patients who might most benefit from open or endovascular aneurysm repair.
Methods: A retrospective database review was performed for the period January 1999 to December 2004 to identify patients who had undergone elective open aneurysm repair (open repair) or elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Validation of the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS), the Modified Leiden Score (M-LS), and the Modified Comorbidity Severity Score (M-CSS) was performed for perioperative mortality risk in the open repair group. GAS, M-LS, and M-CSS were then calculated for the EVAR group. Differences in open repair vs EVAR mortalities were evaluated.
Results: During the time period, 558 patients underwent open repair and 304 underwent EVAR. Overall mortality was 4.7% for open repair patients and 2.0% for EVAR. All three scoring systems were validated to our open repair data set (C statistic: GAS, 0.72; M-LS, 0.71; M-CSS, 0.74). A score was calculated for each system that separated patients into groups of either low or high risk of death for open repair. This score (cut point) was 76.5 for the GAS, 5.2 for the M-LS, and 8 for the M-CSS. Analysis of the EVAR population revealed that patients at low medical risk for open repair did not derive statistically significant mortality benefit with EVAR; however, patients at high medical risk for open repair derived significant benefit from EVAR (GAS>76.5 mortality: open repair, 7.8%; EVAR, 1.9% [P<.01]; M-LS mortality: open repair, 8.1%; EVAR, 2.5% [P<.01]; and M-CSS mortality: open repair, 10.3%; EVAR, 3.4% [P<.025]). Despite a very small number of deaths (n=6), receiver operator curve analysis identified M-LS and M-CSS as having some predictive ability for mortality risk with EVAR (C statistic: M-LS, 0.70; M-CSS, 0.69).
Conclusion: Three validated objective scoring systems can be used to categorize patients into two groups of medical risk: one that has excellent outcome with open repair and derives no early mortality benefit from EVAR, and another that has significant mortality with open repair and derives important benefit with EVAR.
Similar articles
-
The Glasgow Aneurysm Score as a tool to predict 30-day and 2-year mortality in the patients from the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management trial.J Vasc Surg. 2008 Feb;47(2):277-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.10.018. J Vasc Surg. 2008. PMID: 18241749 Clinical Trial.
-
Women derive less benefit from elective endovascular aneurysm repair than men.J Vasc Surg. 2012 Apr;55(4):906-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.11.047. Epub 2012 Feb 8. J Vasc Surg. 2012. PMID: 22322123
-
Analysis of outcome after using high-risk criteria selection to surgery versus endovascular repair in the modern era of abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Apr;39(4):403-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.12.009. Epub 2010 Jan 8. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010. PMID: 20060753
-
Randomized clinical trials of endovascular repair versus surveillance for treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms.J Endovasc Ther. 2009 Feb;16 Suppl 1:I94-105. doi: 10.1583/08-2600.1. J Endovasc Ther. 2009. PMID: 19317579 Review.
-
Coagulation, fibrinolysis, and platelet activation in patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.J Vasc Surg. 2011 Sep;54(3):865-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.04.010. J Vasc Surg. 2011. PMID: 21684711 Review.
Cited by
-
Results of Open and Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair According to the E-PASS Score.Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Feb;31(1):22-30. doi: 10.5935/1678-9741.20160006. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2016. PMID: 27074271 Free PMC article.
-
Endovascular Treatment versus Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: The Influence of Fitness in Decision Making.Int J Angiol. 2013 Mar;22(1):9-12. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1333868. Int J Angiol. 2013. PMID: 24436578 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Risk prediction for perioperative mortality of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the Medicare population.J Vasc Surg. 2009 Aug;50(2):256-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.01.044. Epub 2009 Feb 26. J Vasc Surg. 2009. PMID: 19249184 Free PMC article.
-
Illustration of the Impact of Unmeasured Confounding Within an Economic Evaluation Based on Nonrandomized Data.MDM Policy Pract. 2017 Mar 16;2(1):2381468317697711. doi: 10.1177/2381468317697711. eCollection 2017 Jan-Jun. MDM Policy Pract. 2017. PMID: 30288418 Free PMC article.
-
The Obsolete Maximum Diameter Criterion, the Evident Role of Biomechanical (Pressure) Indices, the New Role of Hemodynamic (Flow) Indices, and the Multi-Modal Approach to the Rupture Risk Assessment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.Ann Vasc Dis. 2018 Mar 25;11(1):78-83. doi: 10.3400/avd.ra.17-00115. Ann Vasc Dis. 2018. PMID: 29682111 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources