Creation of a Scorecard to Predict In-Hospital Death in Patients Undergoing Operations for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated preoperative predictors of in-hospital death for the surgical treatment of patients with acute type A aortic dissection (Type A) and created an easy-to-use scorecard to predict in-hospital death. METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively all consecutive patients who underwent operations for acute Type A between 1996 and 2011 at 2 tertiary care institutions. A logistic regression model was created to identify independent preoperative predictors of in-hospital death. The results were used to create a scorecard predicting operative risk. RESULTS: Emergency operations were performed in 534 consecutive patients for acute Type A. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years and 36.3% were women. Critical preoperative state was present in 31% of patients and malperfusion of one or more end organs in 36%. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 18.7% and not significantly different between institutions. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age 50 to 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; p = 0.001), age older than 70 years (OR, 2.8; p = 0.03), critical preoperative state (OR, 3.2; p < 0.001), visceral malperfusion (OR, 3.0; p = 0.003), and coronary artery disease (OR, 2.2; p = 0.006). Age younger than 50 years (OR, 0.3; p = 0.01) was protective for early survival. Using this information, we created an easily usable mortality risk score based on these variables. The patients were stratified into four risk categories predicting in-hospital death: less than 10%, 10% to 25%, 25% to 50%, and more than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: This represents one of the largest series of patients with Type A in which a risk model was created. Using our approach, we have shown that age, critical preoperative state, and malperfusion syndrome were strong independent risk factors for early death and could be used for the preoperative risk assessment.

Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: utility of risk stratification with EuroSCORE.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of percutaneous valve implantation, an increasing amount of interest is being expressed in outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients. We evaluated characteristics and outcomes of elderly patients undergoing isolated AVR with a particular focus on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) risk stratification. METHODS: All patients aged 80 years or older (n = 282) undergoing isolated AVR between November 1995 and June 2006 at our institution were reviewed according to logistic EuroSCORE (ES(log)) risk stratification. Surgical risk was defined as low risk (ES(log) < or = 10% [n = 107]), moderate risk (10% < ES(log) < 20% [n = 103]), and high risk (ES(log) > or = 20% [n = 72]). Patient age was 82 +/- 2 years (low risk), 82.7 +/- 2.7 years (moderate risk), and 83.6 +/- 3.1 years (high risk), respectively (p < 0.05). Mean ES(log) predicted risk of mortality was 7.3% +/- 1.4% (low risk), 13.7% +/- 2.5% (moderate risk), and 33.0% +/- 11.5% (high risk; p < 0.05). Follow-up was 99.7% complete. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 7.5% (low risk), 12.6% (moderate risk), and 12.5% (high risk; p = 0.4). One-year survival was 90%, 78%, and 69% (p = 0.002); 5-year survival was 70%, 53%, and 38% (p = 0.05); and 8-year survival was 38%, 33%, and 21% (p = 0.017), for low-, moderate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Independent predictors for in-hospital mortality were pulmonary hypertension and urgent indication for surgery. Cox regression predictors of medium-term survival were congestive heart failure, urgent timing, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, and EuroSCORE stratum. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement can be performed in the elderly population with acceptable outcomes. EuroSCORE risk stratification is imprecise for prediction of perioperative mortality among octogenarian AVR patients, but may be useful for predicting mortality during medium-term follow-up.

Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and additional risk factors on outcome after aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Four thousand one hundred and thirty-one patients who were operated between May 1996 and April 2004 were evaluated. One thousand eight hundred and fifty-six patients received bileaflet mechanical AVR and 2275 stented xenograft AVR. PPM was defined as severe if manufacturers effective orifice area (EOA) divided by body surface area (BSA) was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and as moderate in the range of 0.65-0.85 cm(2)/m(2). PPM, age, gender, EOA index, emergency indication for surgery (within 24h), EuroSCORE as well as requirement for additional procedures were tested. Univariate (Fisher's exact test) and multivariate logistic regression analysis as well as survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) were performed. RESULTS: Severe PPM was present in 97 (2.4%) and moderate PPM in 1103 (26.7%) patients. PPM occurs more frequently with xenograft AVR. In-hospital mortality was 5.2% for severe, 10.6% for moderate and 6.9% with no PPM (p=0.018, OR 1.4). Moderate PPM was independently predictive for short- and long-term mortality. Further analysis revealed patient age >70 years (n=1589, p=0.002, OR 1.85), emergency indication (n=374, p<0.001, OR 4.4), EuroSCORE >10 (n=494, p<0.001, OR 4.7) and additional cardiac procedures (n=2049, p<0.001, OR 2.0) as predictors for adverse outcome after AVR. CONCLUSION: Severe PPM is rare; moderate PPM is present in a quarter of patients. PPM has a significant impact on short- and long-term mortality after AVR.