ALERT!

This site is not optimized for Internet Explorer 8 (or older).

Please upgrade to a newer version of Internet Explorer or use an alternate browser such as Chrome or Firefox.

Comparison of Four Mortality Scores for Surgical Repair of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Multicenter External Validation

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Submitted by

Francesco Pollari

Source

Source Name: European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Source URL: https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/article-abstract/65/2/ezae005/7517111?redirectedF…

Author(s)

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 Barili, Alessandro Parolari, Theodor Fischlein, GIROC (Italian Research Group on Outcome in Cardiac Surgery)

In the last decades, four different scores for the prediction of mortality following surgery for type A acute aortic dissection (TAAD) were proposed. Researchers aimed to validate these scores in a large external multicenter cohort. The study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgery for TAAD between 2000 and 2020. Patients were enrolled from ten centers in two European countries. Outcomes were determined for early (30-day and/or in-hospital) and one-year mortality. Discrimination, calibration, and observed/expected (O/E) ratio were evaluated for the GERAADA, the UK Aortic, Centofanti's, and IRAD's score. The GERAADA score showed the best performance in comparison with other scores. However, none of them achieved both a fair discrimination and good calibration for predicting either the early or the one-year mortality.