SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Parmar, C D
Right arrow Articles by Torella, F
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Parmar, C D
Right arrow Articles by Torella, F
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Vascular Surgery: Are Cardiac Risk Scores of Any Practical Value?

C D Parmar, MS, DNB, MRCS and F Torella, MD, FRCS*

Department of Vascular Surgery

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: f.torella{at}liv.ac.uk.


   Abstract

Background: Disease-specific preoperative scoring systems are often used to predict postoperative cardiac complications. We retrospectively evaluated the accuracy of 2 cardiac risk scores in the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after vascular surgery.

Methods: Consecutive procedures were "scored" according to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) and the Eagle criteria. Two "generic" risk scoring systems, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) grade and the physiology Portsmouth POSSUM (P-POSSUM) score, were also documented for comparison.

Results: After 344 surgical procedures, 18 patients suffered a MACE (5.2%; 95% CI = 2.8-7.58-4 fatal). The RCRI (AUC 95% CI = 0.68 [0.57-0.83], P = .009) and the Eagle criteria (AUC 95% CI = 0.73 [0.57-0.8], P = .001) were no better than P-POSSUM (AUC 95% CI = 0.82 [0.73-0.91], P < .001) and ASA grade (AUC 95% CI = 0.67 (0.56-0.78), P = 0.016) in predicting MACE. Of the variables included in the 2 cardiac scoring systems, only age and history of ischemic heart disease were associated with MACE in our patients.

Conclusion: Cardiac risk scores were no better than generic risk scoring systems in predicting MACE. Poor performance may be due to differences between our patient population and those in which the scores were developed and to improved perioperative management of cardiac risk.

First published on October 14, 2009
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2009, doi:10.1177/1538574409349320


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement