Why the study?
Do the Glasgow aneurysm score, Giles' score, and modified Leiden score accurately predict 30-day mortality and 4-year survival in patients undergoing elective endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm?
Do the Glasgow aneurysm score, Giles' score, and modified Leiden score accurately predict 30-day mortality and 4-year survival in patients undergoing elective endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm?
The Glasgow aneurysm score and Giles' score are effective tools for predicting short- and long-term mortality after elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
May support risk stratification before elective EVAR; leaves open prospective validation before changing practice.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate three risk scoring methods in predicting outcome after elective endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. DESIGN: A Zenith stent graft was employed in 205 patients during years 2001-2005. RESULTS: The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.9%. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis showed that the Glasgow aneurysm score (GAS) (AUC: 0.843, p=0.004) and the Giles' score (AUC 0.815, p=0.009) had a rather large area under the curve in predicting 30-day mortality rate. The modified Leiden score was much less accurate (AUC: 0.594). The best cut-off value for the GAS in predicting 30-day mortality was 90 (0.6% vs. 17.9%, p<0.0001). Patients with a GAS > or = 90 had a 4-year survival rate of 56.8%, whereas it was 78.5% among those with a lower GAS (p = 0.001). The best cut-off value for the Giles' score was 11 (1.3% vs. 8.3%, p<0.0001). Patients with a Giles' score > or = 11 had a 4-year survival rate of 63.9%, whereas it was 79.0% among those with a lower score (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The GAS and Giles' risk scoring methods are good predictors of poor immediate and late outcome after EVAR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nevala et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: