RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest (MICA) is a validated self-explanatory score applied in cardiac or noncardiac surgeries. This study aims to assess the predictive value of the MICA score for cardiovascular events after aortoiliac revascularization. METHODS: This prospective cohort underwent elective aortoiliac revascularization between 2013 and 2021. Patients' demographic, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were registered. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the MICA score using optimal binning. Survival analysis to test for time-dependent variables and multivariate Cox regression analysis for independent predictors were performed. RESULTS: This study included 130 patients with a median follow-up of 55 months. Preoperative MICA score was ≥6.5 in 41 patients. MICA ≥6.5 presented a statistically significant association, with long-term occurrence of acute heart failure (HR = 1.695, 95% CI 1.208-2.379, P = 0.002), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR = 1.222, 95% CI 1.086-1.376, P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.256, 95% CI 1.107-1.425, P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed MICA as a significant independent predictor of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (aHR = 1.145 95% CI 1.010-1.298, P = 0.034) and all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.172 95% CI 1.026-1.339, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: The MICA score is a quick, easy-to-obtain, predictive tool in identifying patients with a higher risk of postaortoiliac revascularization cardiovascular events, such as acute heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Additional research for the validation of the MICA score in the context of aortoiliac revascularization and specific interventions is necessary.
Asunto(s)
Paro Cardíaco , Infarto del Miocardio , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Medición de Riesgo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Tiempo , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Paro Cardíaco/mortalidad , Paro Cardíaco/diagnóstico , Paro Cardíaco/etiología , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio/etiología , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Arteria Ilíaca/cirugía , Arteria Ilíaca/diagnóstico por imagen , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/mortalidad , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Aorta/mortalidad , Enfermedades de la Aorta/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Aorta/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedades de la Aorta/complicaciones , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/mortalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Carotid restenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a cumulative risk at 5-years up to 32%, which may impact the well-being of patients following CEA. Haematological parameters in the standard complete blood cell count (CBC) are emerging as potential biomarkers, but their application in CEA is scarce. The primary aim of this study was to investigate haematological markers for restenosis following CEA. The secondary aim was to characterize clinical risk factors for restenosis. METHODS: From January 2012 to January 2019, 151 patients who underwent CEA under regional anaesthesia due to carotid stenosis were selected from a prospectively maintained cohort database. Patients were included if a preoperative CBC was available in the 2 weeks preceding CEA. Multivariable analysis was performed alongside propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, using the preoperative CEA parameters, to reduce confounding factors between categories. RESULTS: The study group comprised 28 patients who developed carotid restenosis. The remaining 123 patients without restenosis composed the control group. Mean age of the patients did not differ significantly between groups (70.25 ± 8.05 vs. 70.32 ± 9.61 YO, P = 0.973), neither did gender (male gender 89.3% vs. 78.9%, P = 0.206). Regarding haematological parameters, only MPV remained statistically significant within multivariable analysis (1.855, aOR [1.174-2.931], P = 0.008), a result supported by PSM analysis (2.072, aOR [1.036-4.147], P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: MPV was able to predict restenosis 2 years after CEA. Thus, MPV can be incorporated into score calculations to identify patients at greater risk of restenosis, who could benefit from specific monitoring during follow-up. While results are promising, more research is necessary to corroborate them.