Key result
EuroSCORE II predicts 30-day mortality in acute type A aortic dissection better than GERAADA.
Why the study?
The predictive performance of the newly launched GERAADA score compared to the widely used EuroSCORE II for 30-day mortality in ATAAD surgery patients was not evaluated.
Does the GERAADA score predict 30-day surgical mortality better than EuroSCORE II in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
Observational (n=1,346)
Does the GERAADA score predict 30-day surgical mortality better than EuroSCORE II in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.708 (95% CI 0.664-0.792)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.708% vs 0.648%
EuroSCORE II provides superior discrimination for 30-day mortality in acute type A aortic dissection surgery compared to the GERAADA score, although it significantly underestimates the absolute mortality risk.
EuroSCORE II may guide ATAAD risk discussions now; leaves open whether GERAADA calibration justifies routine adoption without prospective validation.
EuroSCORE II is one of the most widely utilized cardiovascular surgery risk scoring systems. Recently, a new online score calculator, namely the German Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A (GERAADA), was launched to predict 30-day surgical mortality for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the predictive performance of these two scores. We calculated the two scores for 1346 ATAAD patients from January 2012 to December 2021. The overall performance was evaluated using Brier scores and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to assess diagnostic ability, and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was utilized to evaluate calibration. The GERAADA score and EuroSCORE II predicted 30-day mortality rates of 14.7% and 3.1%, respectively, while the observed rate was 12.5%. The predictive ability of EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.708, 95% CI: 0.664-0.792) was superior to that of the GERAADA score (0.648, 95% CI: 0.605-0.692). The GERAADA score had higher sensitivity but lower specificity than EuroSCORE II. And the GERAADA score may overestimate mortality (0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89), while EuroSCORE II may underestimate the mortality rate (3.17, 95% CI: 2.92-3.44). The EuroSCORE II was superior in predicting surgical mortality among ATAAD patients. But the observed 30-day mortality rate certified a good calibration for the GERAADA score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) (n=1,346). EuroSCORE II vs. GERAADA score was evaluated on 30-day surgical mortality predictive ability (AUC) (AUC 0.708, 95% CI 0.664-0.792). EuroSCORE II demonstrated superior predictive ability for 30-day surgical mortality in acute type A aortic dissection compared to the GERAADA score (AUC 0.708 vs 0.648).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: