Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jun;63(6):1428-1433.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.12.028. Epub 2016 Mar 19.

Predicting reinterventions after open and endovascular aneurysm repair using the St George's Vascular Institute score

Jorg Lucas de Bruin  1 , Alan Karthikesalingam  2 , Peter J Holt  2 , Monique Prinssen  3 , Matt M Thompson  2 , Jan D Blankensteijn  4 ; Dutch Randomised Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Predicting reinterventions after open and endovascular aneurysm repair using the St George's Vascular Institute score

Jorg Lucas de Bruin et al. J Vasc Surg. 2016 Jun.
Free article

Erratum in

  • Correction.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Vasc Surg. 2018 Feb;67(2):683. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.12.013. J Vasc Surg. 2018. PMID: 29389436 No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Identifying patients at risk for aneurysm rupture and sac expansion after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) may help to attenuate this risk by intensifying follow-up and early detection of problems. The goal of this study was to validate the St George's Vascular Institute (SGVI) score to identify patients at risk for a secondary intervention after elective aneurysm repair.

Methods: A post hoc on-treatment analysis of a randomized trial comparing open AAA repair and EVAR was performed. In this multicenter trial, 351 patients were randomly assigned to undergo open AAA repair or EVAR. Information on survival and reinterventions was available for all patients at 5 years postoperatively, for 79% at 6 years, and for 53% at 7 years. Open repair was completed in 173 patients and EVAR in 171, based on an on-treatment analysis. Because 17 patients had incomplete anatomic data, 327 patients (157 open repair and 170 EVAR) were available for analysis. During 6 years of follow-up, 78 patients underwent at least one reintervention. The SGVI score, which is calculated from preoperative AAA morphology using aneurysm and iliac diameter, predictively dichotomized patients into groups at high-risk or low-risk for a secondary intervention. The observed freedom from reintervention was compared between groups at predicted high-risk and predicted low-risk.

Results: The 20 patients in the high-risk group were indeed at higher risk for a secondary intervention compared with the 307 patients predicted to be at low risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.05-7.11; P < .001). Discrimination between high-risk and low-risk groups was valid for EVAR (HR, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.93-8.51; P < .001) and for open repair (HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.02-11.4; P = .033).

Conclusions: The SGVI score appears to be a useful tool to predict reintervention risk in patients after open repair and EVAR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms