Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index adjusted to age in prognosis after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48750/acv.490Keywords:
Charlson Comorbidity Index, EVAR, PrognosisAbstract
BACKGROUND: Individualized risk assessment using comorbidity adjustment is an important component in modern clinical practice and can be performed considering individual comorbidities or through the use of summary measures. The Charlson Comorbidity Index adjusted to age (CCIa) is the most widely validated and used comorbidity assessment tool. Studies have proved CCIa as a strong predictor of mortality for a variety of medical and surgical conditions; however, its utility in patients submitted to elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been studied.
METHODS: Patients submitted to EVAR between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021 in our tertiary, academic Vascular Surgery Department were retrospectively evaluated and 123 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics and peri-operative variables were collected and CCIa was calculated. Surgical complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curves was calculated to validate and determine the discriminating ability of CCIa in predicting complications and mortality and the Youden index used to determine the critical value.
RESULTS: Mean age was 73.49±7.95 years and mean follow-up was 30.55±16.49 months. 30-day complication rate was 16%, 30-day mortality 1.63% and overall mortality 16%. Patients with higher CCIa had higher overall mortality (p=.002) but CCIa had no impact on 30-day complication rate and on 30-day mortality. Logistic regression showed that even after adjusting for patient ́s comorbidities individually, CCIa was the only independent mortality predictor (p=.003). The optimal cutoff associated with higher overall mortality was found to be ≥6.
CONCLUSION: CCIa does not seem to predict complications and early mortality after EVAR but it seems to be a useful predictor of mid-term survival after EVAR. These results show the limited role of this score in predicting outcomes after surgery but may help identify a sub-population whose shorter life-expectancy should be considered towards the benefits of EVAR.
Downloads
References
Sidway A, Perler B. Rutherford ́s Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2018.
Oliveira V, Oliveira P, Moreira M, Correia M, Lima P, Silva J, et al. Impact of Total Psoas Area and Lean Muscular Area on Mortality after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021; 72:479-87
Teng B, Xie C, Zhao Y, Wang Z. Studies Related to Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in the Past 10 Years (2011-2020): A Bibliometric Analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2022;28: e935006
Antoniou G, Schermerhorn M, Forbes T, Cheng V, Antoniou S, Golledge J, et al. Risk factors, risk stratification, and risk-specific surveillance strategies after endovascular aneurysm repair: study by the International Risk Stratification in EVAR (IRIS-EVAR) working group. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e055803
Wang Y, Yuan F, Bai Y, Yao W, Zhou C, Liu j, et al. Natural History and Influence on Long-term Outcomes of Isolated Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A 10-year Experience at a Single Center. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022;23:99
Paravastu S, Jayarajasingam R, Cottam R, Palfreyman S, Michaels J, Thomas S. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database Syst Ver. 2014;1:CD004178
Tomic I, Zlatanovic P, Markovic M, Sladojevic M, Mutavdzic P, Trailovic R, et al. Identification of Risk Factors and Development of Predictive Risk Score Model for Mortality after Open Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58:549
Wanhainen A, Verzini F, Van Herzeele I, Allaire E, Bown M, Cohnert T, et al. ESVS Guidelines Committee. Editor’s Choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019; 57:8–93
Abdominal aortic aneurysm: diagnosis and management, NICE guideline. 2020.
Toson B, Harvey L, Close J. The ICD-10 Charlson Comorbidity Index predicted mortality but not resource utilization following hip fracture. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:44-51
Crooks C, West J, Card T. A comparison of the recording of comorbiity in primary and secondary care by using the Charlson Index to predict short- term and long-term survival in a routine linked data cohort. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007974
Goldstein L, Samsa G, Matchar D, Horner R. Charlson Index comorbidity adjustment for ischemic stroke outcome studies. Stroke. 2004;35:1941-5
Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47:1245-51
Yang C, Chen P, Hsu C, Chang S, Lee C. Validity of the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on Clinical Outcomes for Patients with Nasopharyngeal Cancer Post Radiation Treatment: A 5-Year Nationwide Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0117323
Marchena-Gomez J, Acosta-Merida M, Hemmersbach-Miller M, Conde- Martel A, Roque-Castellano C, Hernandez-Romero J. The Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index as an Outcome Predictor of Patients with Acute Mesenteric Ischemia. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:458-64
Wu C, Hsu T, Chang C, Yu C, Lee C. Ade-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index Scores as Predictor of Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients Who Underwent Surgical Resection and Chemoradiation. Medicine. 2015;94:e431
Coyan G, Chin H, Shah A, Wang Y, Kilic A, sultan I, et al. Charlson Comorbidity Index Predicts Longer-term Mortality and Re-admission in Isolated CABG. Circulation. 2019;140:A11636
Shanbhag V, Arjun N, Chaudhuri S, Pandey A. Utility of Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index as a Predictor of Need for Invasive Mechanical Ventilation, Length of Hospital Stay, and Survival in COVID-19 Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021; 25: 987-91
World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: WHO Technical Report Series. 2000.
Ternavasio-de la Vega HG, Castanõ-Romero F, Ragozzino S, et al. The updated Charlson comorbidity index is a useful predictor of mortality in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146:2122-30
Kim L, Sweeting M, Epstein D, Venerno M, Rohlffs F, Greenhalgh R. Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Ann Surg. 2021; 274:e589-98
Byun E, Kwon T, Kim H, Cho Y, Han Y, Ko G. Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0260690
Barz M, Bette S, Janssen I, Aftahy A, Huber T, Liesche-Starnecker F. Age-adjused Charlson comorbidity index in recurrent glioblastoma: a new prognostic factor? BMC Neurology. 2022;22:32
Oliveira V, Oliveira P, Silva J, Lima P, Correia M, Pereia R, et al. Prognostic value of Charlson Comorbidity Index in Acute Embolic Lower Limb Ischaemia Patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;76:417-25
Charlson M, Carrozzino D, Guidi J, Patierno C. Charlson Comorbidity Index: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties. Psychother Psychosom. 2022; 91:8-35
Fan ZY, Yang Y, Zhang CH, Yin RY, Tang L, Zhang F. Prevalence and Patterns of Comorbidity Among Middle-Aged and Elderly People in China: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on CHARLS Data. International Journal of General Medicine. 2021;14:1449-55
Png C, Tadros R, Faries P, Torres M, Kim S, Lookstein R. The Effect of Age on Post-EVAR Outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;35:156-62
