External validation of a 5-year survival prediction model after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Randall R De Martino, Ying Huang, Jayawant Mandrekar, Philip P. Goodney, Gustavo Oderich, Manju Kalra, Thomas C. Bower, Jack L. Cronenwett, Peter Gloviczki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients. Methods: All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test). Results: The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit). Conclusions: Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Survival
Lung Diseases
Comorbidity
Rupture
Kidney
Mortality
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

External validation of a 5-year survival prediction model after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. / De Martino, Randall R; Huang, Ying; Mandrekar, Jayawant; Goodney, Philip P.; Oderich, Gustavo; Kalra, Manju; Bower, Thomas C.; Cronenwett, Jack L.; Gloviczki, Peter.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5eb8311d3d9a4697b5e4c4d8f0d07c31,
title = "External validation of a 5-year survival prediction model after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair",
abstract = "Objective: The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients. Methods: All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test). Results: The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70{\%} endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59{\%} endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76{\%} vs 68{\%}; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75{\%} vs 77{\%}; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95{\%} confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95{\%} confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit). Conclusions: Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.",
author = "{De Martino}, {Randall R} and Ying Huang and Jayawant Mandrekar and Goodney, {Philip P.} and Gustavo Oderich and Manju Kalra and Bower, {Thomas C.} and Cronenwett, {Jack L.} and Peter Gloviczki",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.104",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - External validation of a 5-year survival prediction model after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

AU - De Martino, Randall R

AU - Huang, Ying

AU - Mandrekar, Jayawant

AU - Goodney, Philip P.

AU - Oderich, Gustavo

AU - Kalra, Manju

AU - Bower, Thomas C.

AU - Cronenwett, Jack L.

AU - Gloviczki, Peter

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients. Methods: All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test). Results: The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit). Conclusions: Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.

AB - Objective: The benefit of prophylactic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is based on the risk of rupture exceeding the risk of death from other comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to validate a 5-year survival prediction model for patients undergoing elective repair of asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm to assist in optimal selection of patients. Methods: All patients undergoing elective repair for asymptomatic AAA <6.5 cm (open or endovascular) from 2002 to 2011 were identified from a single institutional database (validation group). We assessed the ability of a prior published Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) model (derivation group) to predict survival in our cohort. The model was assessed for discrimination (concordance index), calibration (calibration slope and calibration in the large), and goodness of fit (score test). Results: The VSGNE derivation group consisted of 2367 patients (70% endovascular). Major factors associated with survival in the derivation group were age, coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, and antiplatelet and statin medication use. Our validation group consisted of 1038 patients (59% endovascular). The validation group was slightly older (74 vs 72 years; P < .01) and had a higher proportion of men (76% vs 68%; P < .01). In addition, the derivation group had higher rates of advanced cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and baseline creatinine concentration (1.2 vs 1.1 mg/dL; P < .01). Despite slight differences in preoperative patient factors, 5-year survival was similar between validation and derivation groups (75% vs 77%; P = .33). The concordance index of the validation group was identical between derivation and validation groups at 0.659 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). Our validation calibration in the large value was 1.02 (P = .62, closer to 1 indicating better calibration), calibration slope of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.97), and score test of P = .57 (>.05 indicating goodness of fit). Conclusions: Across different populations of patients, assessment of age and level of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal disease can accurately predict 5-year survival in patients with AAA <6.5 cm undergoing repair. This risk prediction model is a valid method to assess mortality risk in determining potential overall survival benefit from elective AAA repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028350084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028350084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.104

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.104

M3 - Article

C2 - 28807385

AN - SCOPUS:85028350084

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

ER -