Prognostic Value and Development of a Scoring System in Horses With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome

Background

Despite its widespread use in equine medicine, the clinical value of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) concept in horses remains unknown.

Objectives

To study the prognostic value of measures of SIRS in horses and identify the best model of severe SIRS to predict outcome.

Animals

A total of 479 consecutive adult horse emergency admissions to a private primary referral practice.

Methods

Prospective observational study. All adult horses admitted for emergency treatment over the study period were included. Multivariate logistic regression and stepwise model selection were used.

Results

Each of the 4 SIRS criteria was associated with outcome in this population. Thirty‐one percent of emergency cases had 2 or more abnormal SIRS criteria on admission and were defined as SIRS cases. SIRS was associated with increased odds of death (odds ratio [OR] = 8.22; 95% CI, 4.61–15.18; P < .001), an effect mainly found for acute gastrointestinal cases. SIRS cases were assigned a SIRS score of 2, 3, or 4, according to the number of abnormal SIRS criteria fulfilled on admission, and SIRS3 and SIRS4 cases had increased odds of death compared to SIRS2 cases (OR = 4.45; 95% CI, 1.78–11.15; P = .002). A model of severe SIRS including the SIRS score, blood lactate concentration, and color of the mucous membranes best predicted outcome in this population of horses.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome is associated with an increased risk of death in adult horses presenting with acute gastrointestinal illnesses. The model of severe SIRS proposed in this study could be used to assess the status and prognosis of adult equine emergency admissions.

Secondary Interventions and Mortality Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Device-specific Results from the UK EVAR Trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare secondary intervention rate, aneurysm-related mortality and all-cause mortality for patients receiving elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for large abdominal aortic aneurysms with different commercially available endografts.

DESIGN, MATERIALS & METHODS

In the EVAR 1 and 2 multi-centre trials, the principal endografts used were Zenith and Talent and these are compared in 505 patients from EVAR 1 and 143 patients from EVAR 2 followed-up for an average of 3.8 years until 31st December 2005. Outcomes were analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression, with adjustments for potential confounding risk factors and centre. Gore/Excluder graft outcomes also are reported.

RESULTS

Across the two trials the secondary intervention rates were 7.0 and 9.4 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95%CI 0.52-1.12]. Aneurysm-related mortality was 1.2 and 1.4 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95%CI 0.37-2.19]. All-cause mortality was 8.5 and 10.3 per 100 patient years for Zenith and Talent grafts respectively, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95%CI 0.58-1.14]. The direction of all results was similar when the two trials were analysed separately.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the performance of the two endografts but the direction of results was slightly in favour of patients with Zenith (versus Talent) endografts.

Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a new technology to treat patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) when the anatomy is suitable. Uncertainty exists about how endovascular repair compares with conventional open surgery. EVAR trial 1 was instigated to compare these treatments in patients judged fit for open AAA repair.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2003, 1082 elective (non-emergency) patients were randomised to receive either EVAR (n=543) or open AAA repair (n=539). Patients aged at least 60 years with aneurysms of diameter 5.5 cm or more, who were fit enough for open surgical repair (anaesthetically and medically well enough for the procedure), were recruited for the study at 41 British hospitals proficient in the EVAR technique. The primary outcome measure is all-cause mortality and these results will be released in 2005. The primary analysis presented here is operative mortality by intention to treat and a secondary analysis was done in per-protocol patients.

FINDINGS

Patients (983 men, 99 women) had a mean age of 74 years (SD 6) and mean AAA diameter of 6.5 cm (SD 1). 1047 (97%) patients underwent AAA repair and 1008 (93%) received their allocated treatment. 30-day mortality in the EVAR group was 1.7% (9/531) versus 4.7% (24/516) in the open repair group (odds ratio 0.35 [95% CI 0.16-0.77], p=0.009). By per-protocol analysis, 30-day mortality for EVAR was 1.6% (8/512) versus 4.6% (23/496) for open repair (0.33 [0.15-0.74], p=0.007). Secondary interventions were more common in patients allocated EVAR (9.8% vs 5.8%, p=0.02).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with large AAAs, treatment by EVAR reduced the 30-day operative mortality by two-thirds compared with open repair. Any change in clinical practice should await durability and longer term results.