Prediction of outcome after abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture

BackgroundMost vascular surgeons practice a selective policy of operative intervention for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The evidence on which to justify operative selection remains uncertain. This review examines the prediction of outcome after attempted open repair of ruptured AAA.MethodsThe Medline and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for clinical studies relating to the prediction of outcome after ruptured AAA. Reference lists of relevant articles were also reviewed.ResultsThe last 20 years has seen >60 publications considering variables predictive of outcome after AAA rupture. Four predictive scoring systems are reported: Hardman Index, Glasgow Aneurysm Score, Physiological and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM), and the Vancouver Scoring System. No scoring system has been shown to have consistent or absolute validity. Of the remaining data, there are no individual or combination of variables that can accurately and consistently predict outcome.ConclusionsLittle robust evidence is available on which to base preoperative outcome prediction in patients with ruptured AAA. Experienced clinical judgement will remain of foremost importance in the selection of patients for ruptured AAA repair

MONOTONICITY OF THE JENSEN FUNCTIONAL FOR f- DIVERGENCES WITH APPLICATIONS TO THE ZIPF-MANDELBROT LAW

The Jensen functional in its discrete form is brought in relation to the Csiszar divergence functional via its monotonicity property. Thus deduced general results branch into specific forms for some of the well known f- divergences, e.g. the Kullback-Leibler divergence, the Hellinger distance, the Bhattacharyya coefficient, chi(2)- divergence, total variation distance. Obtained comparative inequalities are also interpreted in the environment of the Zipf and the Zipf-Mandelbrot law

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. Findings: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4·8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4·5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. Interpretation: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. Funding: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved