4.6 Article

Risk score system for late aortic events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.06.019

关键词

uncomplicated; acute type B aortic dissection; aortic events; predictors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Several risk factors for late aortic events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) have been reported; however, they remain controversial. We developed and validated a new risk prediction score system for late aortic events in patients with UTBAD. Methods: We reviewed 187 consecutive patients diagnosed with UTBAD from 2004 to 2017 at 2 centers (derivation cohort) and 219 consecutive patients diagnosed with UTBAD from 2012 to 2016 in 4 other centers (validation cohort). We explored predictors of late aortic events using Fine-Gray generalization of the proportional hazards model, then developed a risk prediction score model and determined the test reliability using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analyses. Finally, we validated the model using external multicenter data. Results: The risk prediction score system was developed using the following independent predictors: initial aortic diameter of >= 40 mm (2 points), false lumen diameter larger than true lumen diameter (2 points), ulcer-like projection (1 point), and age >= 70 years (1 point). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that a cut-off total additive score of 2 points. In the validation cohort, the low-risk group (score, 0-1 point) demonstrated lower 1- and 3-year incidence rates of late aortic events than the high-risk group (score, 2-6 points) (0.9% vs 32.5% and 0.9% vs 47.1%, respectively; P<.0001). Conclusions: We developed a simple risk prediction score system for late aortic events in patients with UTBAD. High-risk patients can be identified using our model, and they should be closely monitored and considered for interventions at the appropriate timing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据