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

Francesco Pollari*, Paolo Nardi, Elisa Mikus, Francesco Ferraro, Marco Gemelli, Ilaria Franzese, Ilaria Chirichilli, Claudia Romagnoni, Giuseppe Santarpino, Salvatore Nicolardi, Roberto Scrofani, Francesco Musumeci, Enzo Mazzaro, Gino Gerosa, Massimo Massetti, Carlo Savini, Giovanni Ruvolo, Michele Di Mauro, Luca Di Marco, Fabio BariliAlessandro Parolari, Theodor Fischlein, Italian Group of Research for Outcome in Cardiac Surgery (GIROC)

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In last decades, 4 different scores for prediction of mortality following surgery for type A acute aortic dissection (TAAD) were proposed. We aimed to validate these scores in a large external multicentre cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgery for TAAD between 2000 and 2020. Patients were enrolled from 10 centers from 2 European countries. Outcomes were the early (30-days and/or in-hospital), and 1-year mortality. Discrimination, calibration and observed/expected (O/E) ratio were evaluated. RESULTS: 1895 patients (31.7% females, mean age 63.72?±?12.8?years) were included in the study. 30-days and in-hospital mortality were 21.7% (n?=?412) and 22.5% (n?=?427) respectively. The GERAADA score shows to have the best discrimination (AUC 0.671 and 0.672) in predicting as well the early and the 1-year mortality, followed by the 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.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberezae005
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Volume65
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2024

Keywords

  • aortic dissection
  • long-term survival
  • outcomes
  • scores

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of 4 mortality scores for surgical repair of type A aortic dissection: a multicentre external validation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this