» Articles » PMID: 38734750

Clinical Predictive Value of the Age, Creatinine, and Ejection Fraction Score in Patients in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection After Total Arch Replacement

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2024 May 11
PMID 38734750
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score has been accepted as a predictor of poor outcome in elective operations. This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of ACEF score in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) patients after total arch replacement. A total of 227 AAAD patients from July 2021 and June 2022 were enrolled and divided into Tertiles 1 (ACEF ≤ 0.73), Tertiles 2 (0.73 < ACEF ≤ 0.95), and Tertiles 3 (ACEF > 0.95). Using inverse probability processing weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics and compare the outcomes. Cox logistic regression was used to further evaluate the survival prediction ability of ACEF score. The in-hospital mortality was 9.8%. After IPTW, in the baseline characteristics reached an equilibrium, a higher ACEF score before operation still associated with higher in-hospital mortality. After 1 year follow-up, 184 patients (90.6%) survival. Multivariable analysis revealed that ACEF score (adjusted hazard ratio  1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.34-4.91; p = 0.036) and binary ACEF score (adjusted HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.82-6.20; p < 0.001) was independently associated with 1-year survival. In addition, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated differentiation improvement (IDI) verified that the ACEF score and binary ACEF score is an accurate predictive tool in clinical settings. In conclusions, ACEF score could be considered as a useful tool to risk stratification in patients with AAAD before operation in daily clinical work.

Citing Articles

Development and validation of a novel bleeding risk prediction tool for aspirin users with a low body mass index.

Yifang L, Wanlin L, Maofeng W Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4624.

PMID: 39920211 PMC: 11805907. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88327-3.

References
1.
Gawinecka J, Schonrath F, von Eckardstein A . Acute aortic dissection: pathogenesis, risk factors and diagnosis. Swiss Med Wkly. 2017; 147:w14489. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2017.14489. View

2.
Allan V, Ramagopalan S, Mardekian J, Jenkins A, Li X, Pan X . Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research of oral anticoagulants. J Comp Eff Res. 2020; 9(9):603-614. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0013. View

3.
Ranucci M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L, Frigiola A, Pelissero G . Risk of assessing mortality risk in elective cardiac operations: age, creatinine, ejection fraction, and the law of parsimony. Circulation. 2009; 119(24):3053-61. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.842393. View

4.
Trimarchi S, Nienaber C, Rampoldi V, Myrmel T, Suzuki T, Mehta R . Contemporary results of surgery in acute type A aortic dissection: The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129(1):112-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.09.005. View

5.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205-13. PMC: 1360123. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. View