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.

C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the sensitivity/specificity of immunoperoxidase method in comparison with the standard immunofluorescence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 87 biopsies made for allograft dysfunction. Immunofluorescence (IF) was performed in frozen allograft biopsies using monoclonal antibody anti-C4d from Quidel®. The indirect immunoperoxidase (IP) technique was performed in paraffin-embebbed tissue with polyclonal antiserum from Serotec®. Biopsies were independently evaluated by two nephropathologist according Banff 2007 classification. RESULTS: By IF, peritubular C4d deposition were detected in 60 biopsies and absent in 27 biopsies. The evaluation of biopsy by IP was less precise due to the presence of background and unspecific staining. We find 13.8% (12/87) of false negative and Banff classification concordance in 79.3% (69/87) of cases (table1). The ROC curve study reveal a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 80.0 % of IP method in relation to the gold standard (area under curve:0.900; 95% Confidence interval :0.817-0.954; p=0.0001). Banff Classification C4d Cases Immunofluorescence Immunoperoxidase n =87 Diffuse Negative 3 (3.4%) Focal Negative 9 (10.3%) Negative Negative 27 (31.0%) Diffuse Diffuse 33 (37.9%) Focal Focal 9 (10.3%) Diffuse Focal 6 (6.9%) CONCLUSION: The IP method presents a good specificity, but lesser sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring more experience of the observer than IF method. If frozen tissue is unavailable, the use of IP for C4d detection is acceptable.

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.

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Carotid Plaques Improves Prediction of Obstructive Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease in Women

Does carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), a surrogate marker of cardiovascular events, have predictive incremental value over established risk factors for stable coronary artery disease (CAD)? Prospective study of 300 patients, with suspected stable CAD, admitted for an elective coronary angiography and carotid ultrasound. The CAD patients had a higher cIMT, which showed a modest predictive accuracy for CAD (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.638, 95% confidence interval 0.576-0.701, P < .001). The cIMT was an independent predictor of CAD, together with age, gender, and diabetes. C-statistic for CAD prediction by traditional risk factors was not significantly different from a model that included cIMT, carotid plaque presence, or both. However, in women, it was significantly increased by the addition of cIMT or carotid plaque presence. Although cIMT cannot be used as a sole indicator of CAD, it should be considered in the panel of investigations that is requested, particularly in women who are candidates for coronary angiography.

Predição de Pré-Eclâmpsia no Primeiro Trimestre em Gravidezes de Baixo Risco: Determinação do Cut-Off numa Amostra da População Portuguesa

Objective:We aimed to identify the cut-off for risk of pre-eclampsia (PE) in Portuguese population by applying the first trimester prediction model from Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) in a prospective enrolled cohort of low risk pregnant women. Population and methods: A prospective cohort of low risk singleton pregnancies underwent routine first-trimester scree - ning from 2011 through 2013. Maternal characteristics, blood pressure, uterine artery Doppler, levels of pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free b-human chorionic gonadotropin were evaluated. The prediction of PE in first trimester was calculated through software Astraia, the outcome obtained from medical records and the cutoff value was subse quently calculated. Results:Of the 273 enrolled patients, 7 (2.6%) developed PE. In first trimester women who developed PE presented higher uterine arteries resistance, represented by higher values of lowest and mean uterine pulsatility index, p <0.005. There was no statistical significance among the remaining maternal characteristics, body mass index, blood pressure and PAPP-A. Using the FMF first trimester PE algorithm, an ideal cut-off of 0.045 (1/22) would correctly detect 71% women who developed PE for a 12% false positive rate and a likelihood ratio of 12.98 (area under the curve: 0.69; confidence interval 95%: 0.39-0.99). By applying the reported cutoff to our cohort, we would obtain 71.4% true positives, 88.3% true negatives, 11.4% false positives and 28.6% false negatives. Conclusion: By applying a first trimester PE prediction model to low risk pregnancies derived from a Portuguese population, a significant proportion of patients would have been predicted as high risk. New larger studies are required to confirm the present findings.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.