American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.

External Validation of the ProACS Score for Risk Stratification of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION: The ProACS risk score is an early and simple risk stratification score developed for all-cause in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) from a Portuguese nationwide ACS registry. Our center only recently participated in the registry and was not included in the cohort used for developing the score. Our objective was to perform an external validation of this risk score for short- and long-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to our center with ACS were included. Demographic and admission characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome data were collected. The ProACS risk score variables are age (≥72 years), systolic blood pressure (≤116 mmHg), Killip class (2/3 or 4) and ST-segment elevation. We calculated ProACS, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome risk score (C-ACS) risk scores for each patient. RESULTS: A total of 3170 patients were included, with a mean age of 64±13 years, 62% with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and 10.3% at one-year follow-up. The ProACS risk score showed good discriminative ability for all considered outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.75) and a good fit, similar to C-ACS, but lower than the GRACE risk score and slightly lower than in the original development cohort. The ProACS risk score provided good differentiation between patients at low, intermediate and high mortality risk in both short- and long-term follow-up (p<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The ProACS score is valid in external cohorts for risk stratification for ACS. It can be applied very early, at the first medical contact, but should subsequently be complemented by the GRACE risk score.