Loading…

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

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). A retrospective single-center study of 257 patients with non-ruptured AAA undergoing EVA...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC cardiovascular disorders 2021-11, Vol.21 (1), p.551-551, Article 551
Main Authors: üzen, Anil, Yilmaz, Metin, YiÄit, Görkem, Civelek, Ä°sa, Türkçü, Mehmet Ali, Çetinkaya, Ferit, Ãnal, Ertekin Utku, Ä°Åcan, Hakki Zafer
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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). 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. 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 
ISSN:1471-2261
1471-2261
DOI:10.1186/s12872-021-02366-y