Glasgow aneurysm scores in patients undergoing open surgical procedure for aortic aneurysm

Glasgow Aneurysm Score: a predictor of long-term mortality following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm?

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the value of Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS) in predicting long-term mortality and survival in patients who have undergone endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study of 257 patients with non-ruptured AAA undergoing EVAR between January 2013 and 2021. GAS scores were compared between the survivors (group 1) and the long-term mortality (group 2) groups. Cox regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors of late mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine the optimum cut-off values of GAS values to determine the effect on late-mortality. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier.

RESULTS

The study included 257 patients with a mean age of 69.75 ± 7.75 (46-92), who underwent EVAR due to AAA. Average follow up period was 18.98 ± 22.84 months (0-88). Fourty-five (17.8%) mortalities occured during long-term follow-up. A past medical history of cancer resulted in a 2.5 fold increase in risk of long-term mortality (OR: 2.52, 95% CI 1.10-5.76; p = 0.029). GAS values were higher in group 2 compared to group 1 (81.02 ± 10.33 vs. 73.73 ± 10.46; p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for GAS was 0.682 and the GAS cut-off value was 77.5 (specificity 64%, p < 0.001). The mortality rates in patients with GAS < 77.5 and GAS > 77.5 were: 12.8% and 24.8% respectively (p = 0.014). Every 10 point increase in GAS resulted in approximately a 2 fold increase in risk of long-term mortality (OR: 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5; p < 0.001). Five year survival rates in patients with GAS < 77.5 and > 77.5 were 75.7% and 61.7%, respectively (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study suggests that an increase in GAS score may predict long-term mortality. In addition, the mortality rates in patients above the GAS cut-off value almost doubled compared to those below. Furthermore, the presence of a past history of cancer resulted in a 2.5 fold increase in long-term mortality risk. Addition of cancer to the GAS scoring system may be considered in future studies. Further studies are necessary to consolidate these findings.

Treatment Strategy of Endovascular versus Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Based on the Fitzgerald Classification

BACKGROUND

The Fitzgerald classification expresses the extension of hematoma from the ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and is related to a patient's preoperative status. The objective of this study was to propose a new decision-making method for emergency surgeries, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), or open repair (OR) for rAAA based on the Fitzgerald classification using preoperative computed tomography images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter observational study was performed with a questionnaire survey of rAAA from August 2010 to July 2015 in Hokkaido, Japan, and sent to 20 institutions participating in the Hokkaido Society of Aortic Stent Graft. We included 205 patients who could be stratified by the Fitzgerald classification as the subjects of this study. We categorized these patients into Fitzgerald classes I and II (first category, n = 72) and classes III and IV (second category, n = 133). The short-term results of both EVAR and OR cases were examined in the 2 categories.

RESULTS

In the first category, patients in the EVAR group were older than those in the OR group. Nonetheless, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in the EVAR group than in the OR group (0% vs. 18%; P = 0.019). In the second category, there was no difference in preoperative factors between the groups. The EVAR group showed a higher incidence rate of postoperative abdominal compartment syndrome than the OR group (12% vs. 2%; P = 0.042). The in-hospital mortality rate was comparable between the groups (24% vs. 25%; P = 0.80). Although there were no deaths in the EVAR group without preoperative shock, in-hospital mortality in the EVAR group of the second category with shock was 41% (vs. 28% in the OR group; P = 0.27). Furthermore, mortality in the EVAR group with Fitzgerald class IV was 100% (vs. 29% in the OR group; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR is recommended in Fitzgerald class I or II and also in Fitzgerald class III or IV without shock because the results of EVAR were better than those of OR. Because all patients who underwent EVAR died in Fitzgerald class IV, OR would be beneficial in this patient population.