Validation of German Aortic Valve Score in a Multi-Surgeon Single Center

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Risk assessment for operative mortality is mandatory for all cardiac operations. For some operation types such as aortic valve repair, EuroSCORE II overestimates the mortality rate and a new scoring system (German AV score) has been developed for a more accurate assessment of operative risk. In this study, we aimed to validate German Aortic Valve Score in our clinic in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. METHODS: A total of 35 patients who underwent isolated open aortic valve replacement between 2010 and 2013 were included. Patients with concomitant procedures and transcatheter aortic valve implantation were excluded. Patients' data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Patients' risk scores EuroSCORE II were calculated online according to criteria described by EuroSCORE taskforce, Aortic Valve Scores were also calculated. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 61.14±13.25 years (range 29-80 years). The number of female patients was 14 (40%) and body mass index of 25 (71.43%) patients was in range of 22-35. Mean German Aortic Valve Score was 1.05±0.96 (min: 0 max: 4.98) and mean EuroSCORE was 2.30±2.60 (min: 0.62, max: 2.30). The Aortic Valve Score scale showed better discriminative capacity (AUC 0.647, 95% CI 0.439-0.854). The goodness of fit was x2HL=16.63; P=0.436). EuroSCORE II scale had shown less discriminative capacity (AUC 0.397, 95% CI 0.200-0.597). The goodness of fit was good for both scales. The goodness of fit was x2HL=30.10; P=0.610. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, German AV score applies to our population with high predictive accuracy and goodness of fit

A comparison of two different management plans for patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a prophylactic operation that is used to mitigate the risk of stroke caused by embolism of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid bifurcation. Previously, the large, multicentre, randomised, controlled GALA study found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated using general or local anaesthesia. While this study provided important insights into disease outcomes based on treatment modalities, it did not answer questions regarding the safety of CEA under local anaesthesia in patients at high risk for cardiovascular complications. Here, we examined the use of two different management plans in patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), in terms of their effects on hospital mortality. Methods: Thirty-four patients consecutively operated on in our cardiovascular department were included in this analysis. The patients were divided into two groups based on the anaesthetic management plan. The first group consisted of patients who underwent CEA and CABG under general anaesthesia in the same session (GA group); the second group consisted of patients who initially underwent CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia in a separate session (CB-GA group). These two groups were compared in terms of postoperative complications and hospital mortality. Results: The incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction was higher in the CB-GA group, with four patients experiencing postoperative myocardial infarction, compared to no patients in the GA group. Conclusion: For patients requiring CEA and CABG, performing both operations under general anaesthesia in the same session was safer than initially performing CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia.WOS:0006726066000042-s2.0-85112482410PubMed: 3372927