We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDIES
Development and validation of a score to predict life expectancy after carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic patients.
Journal of Vascular Surgery 2018 January
OBJECTIVE: Recent improvement of best medical treatment for carotid stenosis has sparked a debate on the role of surgery-identification of patients who may benefit from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is crucial to avoid overtreatment. An expected 5-year postoperative survival is one of the main selection criteria. The aim of this study was the development of a score for predicting survival of asymptomatic patients after CEA.
METHODS: Our score was derived from a retrospective analysis of 648 consecutive asymptomatic patients from a single hospital. External validation of the score was then performed on a second cohort of 334 asymptomatic patients from two different hospitals in the same area. Factors associated with reduced postoperative survival within the derivation cohort (DC) were identified and tested for statistical significance. Each selected factor was assigned a score proportional to its β coefficient: 1 point for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and lack of statin treatment; 4 points for age 70 to 79 years and creatinine concentration ≥1.5 mg/dL; 8 points for age ≥80 years and dialysis. The DC was divided into four groups based on individual scores: group 1, 0 to 3 points; group 2, 4 to 7 points; group 3, 8 to 11 points; and group 4, ≥12 points. Group-specific survival curves were calculated. The validation cohort (VC) was stratified according to the score. Survival of each of the four risk groups within the VC was compared with its analogue from the DC.
RESULTS: Median follow-up of the DC and VC was, respectively, 56 and 65 months. Intercohort comparison of 5-year survival was 84.7% ± 1.7% vs 85.2% ± 2% (P = .41). Group-specific 5-year survival within the DC was 97% ± 1.5% (group 1), 88.4% ± 2.2% (group 2), 69.6% ± 4.7% (group 3), and 48.1% ± 13.5% (group 4; P < .0001). Five-year survival within the VC was 95.5% ± 2% (group 1), 89.5% ± 2.7% (group 2), 65% ± 6.1% (group 3), and 44.8% ± 14.1% (group 4; P < .0001). Intercohort comparison of group-specific survival curves showed close similarity throughout the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our score is a simple clinical tool that allows a quick and reliable prediction of survival in asymptomatic patients who are candidates for CEA. This selective approach is crucial to avoid unnecessary surgery on patients who are less likely to survive long enough to experience the benefits of this preventive procedure.
METHODS: Our score was derived from a retrospective analysis of 648 consecutive asymptomatic patients from a single hospital. External validation of the score was then performed on a second cohort of 334 asymptomatic patients from two different hospitals in the same area. Factors associated with reduced postoperative survival within the derivation cohort (DC) were identified and tested for statistical significance. Each selected factor was assigned a score proportional to its β coefficient: 1 point for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and lack of statin treatment; 4 points for age 70 to 79 years and creatinine concentration ≥1.5 mg/dL; 8 points for age ≥80 years and dialysis. The DC was divided into four groups based on individual scores: group 1, 0 to 3 points; group 2, 4 to 7 points; group 3, 8 to 11 points; and group 4, ≥12 points. Group-specific survival curves were calculated. The validation cohort (VC) was stratified according to the score. Survival of each of the four risk groups within the VC was compared with its analogue from the DC.
RESULTS: Median follow-up of the DC and VC was, respectively, 56 and 65 months. Intercohort comparison of 5-year survival was 84.7% ± 1.7% vs 85.2% ± 2% (P = .41). Group-specific 5-year survival within the DC was 97% ± 1.5% (group 1), 88.4% ± 2.2% (group 2), 69.6% ± 4.7% (group 3), and 48.1% ± 13.5% (group 4; P < .0001). Five-year survival within the VC was 95.5% ± 2% (group 1), 89.5% ± 2.7% (group 2), 65% ± 6.1% (group 3), and 44.8% ± 14.1% (group 4; P < .0001). Intercohort comparison of group-specific survival curves showed close similarity throughout the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our score is a simple clinical tool that allows a quick and reliable prediction of survival in asymptomatic patients who are candidates for CEA. This selective approach is crucial to avoid unnecessary surgery on patients who are less likely to survive long enough to experience the benefits of this preventive procedure.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app