当前位置： SCI文献检索 > JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY期刊下所有文献 > Objective scoring systems of medical risk: a clinical tool for selecting patients for open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

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.

journal_name

J Vasc Surg

journal_title

Journal of vascular surgery

authors

Faizer R,DeRose G,Lawlor DK,Harris KA,Forbes TL

doi

10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.036

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2007-06-01 00:00:00

pages

1102-1108

issue

eissn

0741-5214

issn

1097-6809

pii

S0741-5214(07)00324-2

journal_volume

pub_type

杂志文章

在线工具

Objective scoring systems of medical risk: a clinical tool for selecting patients for open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.