Was leisten Risiko-Scores beim rupturierten abdominellen Aortenaneurysma (rAAA)?

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Rupturierte abdominelle Aortenaneurysmen (rAAA) sind von einer hohen prähospitalen und hohen hospitalen Mortalität gekennzeichnet. Trotz kostenintensiven Einsatzes intensivmedizinischer Therapieverfahren versterben 30 – 50 % der operierten Patienten. Der ASA-Score ist einer der meist angewendeten Scores weltweit. Der Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS) und der Hardman-Index (HI) sind in der Literatur gängige Verfahren, das Überleben nach operativer Versorgung rAAA abzuschätzen. Bezüglich des Comorbidity Factor Severity Scores (CSS) liegen keine evaluierten Erkenntnisse hinsichtlich der Mortalität bei rAAA vor. Anhand des eigenen Patientenkollektivs sollte evaluiert werden, inwieweit die Risiko-Scores eine Antwort auf die Frage der Therapieeinstellung geben könnten.

Methodik: In einer retrospektiven Studie (7/1998 – 12/2007) wurden 94 Patienten (m : f = 78 : 16) nach offener operativer Versorgung mit rAAA untersucht. Die Gültigkeit der präoperativen Risikoabschätzung anhand des ASA-Scores, des CSS, des GAS und des HI, bezogen auf den intra- oder postoperativen Tod während des initialen stationären Aufenthaltes, wurde überprüft. Sensitivität und Spezifität der Score-Systeme wurden mittels Receiver-Operating-Characteristics (ROC)-Analyse ermittelt.

Ergebnisse: Das Alter der Patienten lag bei 72,3 ± 9,5 Jahren (MW ± SD). Postoperativ starben 35 Patienten (37,2 %). Für die verschiedenen Scores ergaben sich in der ROC-Analyse nachfolgende AUCs: ASA = 0,598, Hardman-Index = 0,742, Glasgow Aneurysm Score = 0,787, CSS = 0,614.

Schlussfolgerung: Es zeigten sich deutliche Unterschiede in der Prognosevorhersagekraft der verwendeten Scores. In Übereinstimmung mit der Literatur lies kein Score eine 100 %ige prädiktive Aussage hinsichtlich des Versterbens zu. Somit ist eine individuelle Entscheidung bez. einer Therapieeinstellung unter Zuhilfenahme der untersuchten Scores nicht zu treffen. Weitere Parameter bedürfen der Evaluation, um postoperative Therapieentscheidungen treffen zu können.

Abstract

Background: Rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is associated with a high mortality both before and after admission to hospital. In spite of the use of expensive intensive medical therapeutic interventions 30 – 50 % of the operated patients still die. The ASA score is one of the most used scores world-wide. Use of the Glasgow aneurysm score (GAS) and the Hardman index (HI) is frequently reported in the literature to predict survival after surgical management of rAAA. With regard to the comorbidity factor severity score (CSS) no evaluated data on the mortality in cases of rAAA are available. On the basis of our own patient collective we intended to assess to what extent the risk score could give an answer to the question of therapeutic options.

Methods: In a retrospective study (7/1998 – 8/2007), 94 patients (m : f = 78 : 16) were assessed after operative management of rAAA. The validity of preoperative risk assessments on the basis of the ASA score, the CSS, the GAS and the HI with regard to intra- or postoperative death in the initial hospitalisation period was examined. Sensitivity and specificity of the score systems were determined by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses.

Results: The age of the patients was 72.3 ± 9.5 years (mean ± SD). Thirty-five (37.2 %) patients died in the immediate postoperative period. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for ASA, GAS, HI and CSS were 0.598, 0.787, 0.742 and 0.614, respectively.

Conclusions: This study revealed clear differences in the prognostic predictions of the various scores. In accord with the literature, no score gave a 100 % positive result with regard to mortality. Thus, an individual decision or, respectively, a therapeutic option cannot be reached with the help of the investigated scores. Further parameters need to be evaluated in order to make decisions about postoperative therapy.

Schlüsselwörter

rupturiertes abdominelles Aortenaneurysma - Mortalität - Risikoscore

Key words

ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm - mortality - risk score

• Literatur

• 1 Campbell WB, Collin J, Morris PJ. The mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1986; 68: 275-278
• 2 Drott C, Arfvidsson B, Ortenwall P et al. Age-standardized incidence of ruptured aortic aneurysm in a defined Swedish population between 1952 and 1988: mortality rate and operative results. Br J Surg 1992; 79: 175-179
• 3 Hoornweg LL, Storm-Versloot MN, Ubbink DT et al. Meta analysis on mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35: 558-570
• 4 Neugebauer EA, Lefering R. Severity scores in surgery: what for and who needs them? introduction: definition, aims, classification and evaluation. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2002; 387: 55-58
• 5 Troidl H. Risikoanalyse in der Chirurgie. Eine Methode zur Steigerung von Effektivität und Effizienz – eine vernachlässigte Methode. Chirurg 2000; 71: 771-783
• 6 Dubost C, Allary M, Oeconomos N. Anevrysme de l’aorte abdominale traite par resection et greffe. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 1951; 44: 848-851
• 7 Dubost C, Allary M, Oeconomos N. Resection of an aneurysm of the abdominal aorta: reestablishment of the continuity by a preserved human arterial graft, with result after five months. AMA Arch Surg 1952; 64: 405-408
• 8 Dripps RD, Lamont A, Eckenhoff JE. The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 1961; 178: 261-266
• 9 Sidi A, Lobato EB, Cohen JA. The American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Physical Status: category V revisited. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 328-334
• 10 Aronson WL, McAuliffe MS, Miller K. Variability in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Scale. AANA J 2003; 71: 265-274
• 11 Hardman DT, Fisher CM, Patel MI et al. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: who should be offered surgery?. J Vasc Surg 1996; 23: 123-129
• 12 Samy AK, Murray G, MacBain G. Glasgow aneurysm score. Cardiovasc Surg 1994; 2: 41-44
• 13 Chaikof EL, Fillinger MF, Matsumura JS et al. Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2002; 35: 1061-1066
• 14 Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 6: 411-423
• 15 Bartels H, Stein HJ, Schomig A et al. Risikoerfassung. Chirurg 1997; 68: 654-661
• 16 Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 355-360
• 17 Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Van Houwelingen JC et al. Prognostic models based on literature and individual patient data in logistic regression analysis. Stat Med 2000; 19: 141-160
• 18 Steyerberg EW, Kievit J, de Mol VanOtterloo JC et al. Perioperative mortality of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. A clinical prediction rule based on literature and individual patient data. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1998-2004
• 19 Kertai MD, Steyerberg EW, Boersma E et al. Validation of two risk models for perioperative mortality in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2003; 37: 13-21
• 20 Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100: 1043-1049
• 21 Kertai MD, Boersma E, Klein J et al. Optimizing the prediction of perioperative mortality in vascular surgery by using a customized probability model. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 898-904
• 22 Haga Y, Ikei S, Ogawa M. Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) as a new prediction scoring system for postoperative morbidity and mortality following elective gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Today 1999; 29: 219-225
• 23 Samy AK, Murray G, MacBain G. Prospective evaluation of the Glasgow Aneurysm Score. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1996; 41: 105-107
• 24 Vanzetto G, Machecourt J, Blendea D et al. Additive value of thallium single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial imaging for prediction of perioperative events in clinically selected high cardiac risk patients having abdominal aortic surgery. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 143-148
• 25 Barnes M, Boult M, Maddern G et al. A model to predict outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair using preoperative variables. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35: 571-579
• 26 Giles KA, Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ et al. Risk prediction for perioperative mortality of endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the Medicare population. J Vasc Surg 2009; 50: 256-262
• 27 Gatt M, Goldsmith P, Martinez M et al. Do scoring systems help in predicting survival following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009; 91: 123-127
• 28 Larzon T, Lindgren R, Norgren L. Endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a shift of the paradigm?. J Endovasc Ther 2005; 12: 548-555
• 29 Tambyraja AL, Fraser SC, Murie JA et al. Validity of the Glasgow Aneurysm Score and the Hardman Index in predicting outcome after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 570-573
• 30 Haynes SR, Lawler PG. An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 195-199
• 31 Ranta S, Hynynen M, Tammisto T. A survey of the ASA physical status classification: significant variation in allocation among Finnish anaesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 629-632
• 32 Prance SE, Wilson YG, Cosgrove CM et al. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: selecting patients for surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1999; 17: 129-132
• 33 Boyle JR, Gibbs PJ, King D et al. Predicting outcome in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cases. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003; 26: 607-611
• 34 Neary WD, Crow P, Foy C et al. Comparison of POSSUM scoring and the Hardman Index in selection of patients for repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 421-425
• 35 Calderwood R, Halka T, Haji-Michael P et al. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Is it possible to predict outcome?. Int Angiol 2004; 23: 47-53
• 36 Acosta S, Ogren M, Bergqvist D et al. The Hardman index in patients operated on for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic review. J Vasc Surg 2006; 44: 949-954
• 37 Leo E, Biancari F, Nesi F et al. Risk-scoring methods in predicting the immediate outcome after emergency open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 19-23
• 38 Sharif MA, Arya N, Soong CV et al. Validity of the Hardman index to predict outcome in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Vasc Surg 2007; 21: 34-38
• 39 Tambyraja AL, Lee AJ, Murie JA et al. Prognostic scoring in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a prospective evaluation. J Vasc Surg 2008; 47: 282-286
• 40 Korhonen SJ, Ylonen K, Biancari F et al. Glasgow Aneurysm Score as a predictor of immediate outcome after surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 1449-1452
• 41 Laukontaus SJ, Lepantalo M, Hynninen M et al. Prediction of survival after 48 h of intensive care following open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 30: 509-515
• 42 Laukontaus SJ, Pettila V, Kantonen I et al. Utility of surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Vasc Surg 2006; 20: 42-48
• 43 Chaikof EL, Lin PH, Brinkman WT et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: risk stratified outcomes. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 833-841
• 44 Braun K, Brunkwall J, Gawenda M. Risikoeinschatzung in der Aortenchirurgie – Evaluation des SVS / AAVS Comorbidity Severity Score. Zentralbl Chir 2007; 132: 477-484
• 45 Antonello M, Lepidi S, Kechagias A et al. Glasgow aneurysm score predicts the outcome after emergency open repair of symptomatic, unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 33: 272-276