OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has reduced early adverse outcomes from abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Preferential use of EVAR may have altered the profile of patients who undergo open repair. The validity of scoring systems such as the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS), devised when open surgery was the only treatment, required reappraisal. METHODS: Patients were identified from a database of patients undergoing elective infrarenal aneurysm repair at seven United Kingdom centers, and the GAS was calculated for each patient. Discrimination and calibration were calculated to determine the performance of the model in this setting using the C statistic, tertile analysis, and the χ(2) test. Univariate analysis was performed to determine if a new iteration of the GAS could be produced. RESULTS: We identified 330 patients who met the inclusion criteria. There were 18 deaths ≤30 days of surgery (5.4%). The average (standard deviation) GAS was 78.6 (8.8) for the survivors and 81.9 (10.4) for nonsurvivors (P = .122). The C statistic was 0.625 (95% confidence interval, 0.481-0.769; P = .75) suggesting a discriminatory ability not much better than chance alone. Despite this, calibration of the model was good. There was no significant difference in the comorbidities of either group, so no recalibration of the GAS could be performed. CONCLUSION: The GAS did not discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors after open AAA repair in this cohort. In the era of EVAR, it is possible that the GAS does not predict the outcome of open AAA repair. An alternative explanation is that patients with risk factors for poor outcomes from EVAR, such as adverse AAA morphology, are being selected out for open repair.
OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has reduced early adverse outcomes from abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Preferential use of EVAR may have altered the profile of patients who undergo open repair. The validity of scoring systems such as the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS), devised when open surgery was the only treatment, required reappraisal. METHODS: Patients were identified from a database of patients undergoing elective infrarenal aneurysm repair at seven United Kingdom centers, and the GAS was calculated for each patient. Discrimination and calibration were calculated to determine the performance of the model in this setting using the C statistic, tertile analysis, and the χ(2) test. Univariate analysis was performed to determine if a new iteration of the GAS could be produced. RESULTS: We identified 330 patients who met the inclusion criteria. There were 18 deaths ≤30 days of surgery (5.4%). The average (standard deviation) GAS was 78.6 (8.8) for the survivors and 81.9 (10.4) for nonsurvivors (P = .122). The C statistic was 0.625 (95% confidence interval, 0.481-0.769; P = .75) suggesting a discriminatory ability not much better than chance alone. Despite this, calibration of the model was good. There was no significant difference in the comorbidities of either group, so no recalibration of the GAS could be performed. CONCLUSION: The GAS did not discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors after open AAA repair in this cohort. In the era of EVAR, it is possible that the GAS does not predict the outcome of open AAA repair. An alternative explanation is that patients with risk factors for poor outcomes from EVAR, such as adverse AAA morphology, are being selected out for open repair.
Authors: Bala Ramanan; Prateek K Gupta; Abhishek Sundaram; Himani Gupta; Jason M Johanning; Thomas G Lynch; Jason N MacTaggart; Iraklis I Pipinos Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: William P Robinson; Andres Schanzer; Youfu Li; Philip P Goodney; Brian W Nolan; Mohammad H Eslami; Jack L Cronenwett; Louis M Messina Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 4.268