A Novel Inflammation-Based Risk Score Predicts Mortality in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery: The Additive Anti-inflammatory Action for Aortopathy and Arteriopathy Score

Hong Liu, Si-Chong Qian, Ying-Yuan Zhang, Ying Wu, Liang Hong, Ji-Nong Yang, Ji-Sheng Zhong, Yu-Qi Wang, Dong Kai Wu, Guo-Liang Fan, Jun-Quan Chen, Sheng-Qiang Zhang, Xing-Xing Peng, Yong-Feng Shao, Hai-Yang Li, Hong-Jia Zhang, Hong Liu, Si-Chong Qian, Ying-Yuan Zhang, Ying Wu, Liang Hong, Ji-Nong Yang, Ji-Sheng Zhong, Yu-Qi Wang, Dong Kai Wu, Guo-Liang Fan, Jun-Quan Chen, Sheng-Qiang Zhang, Xing-Xing Peng, Yong-Feng Shao, Hai-Yang Li, Hong-Jia Zhang

Abstract

Objective: To develop an inflammation-based risk stratification tool for operative mortality in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.

Methods: Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021, 3124 patients from Beijing Anzhen Hospital were included for derivation, 571 patients from the same hospital were included for internal validation, and 1319 patients from other 12 hospitals were included for external validation. The primary outcome was operative mortality according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons criteria. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression were used to identify clinical risk factors. A model was developed using different machine learning algorithms. The performance of the model was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for discrimination, calibration curves, and Brier score for calibration. The final model (5A score) was tested with respect to the existing clinical scores.

Results: Extreme gradient boosting was selected for model training (5A score) using 12 variables for prediction-the ratio of platelet to leukocyte count, creatinine level, age, hemoglobin level, prior cardiac surgery, extent of dissection extension, cerebral perfusion, aortic regurgitation, sex, pericardial effusion, shock, and coronary perfusion-which yields the highest AUC (0.873 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.845-0.901]). The AUC of 5A score was 0.875 (95% CI 0.814-0.936), 0.845 (95% CI 0.811-0.878), and 0.852 (95% CI 0.821-0.883) in the internal, external, and total cohort, respectively, which outperformed the best existing risk score (German Registry for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection score AUC 0.709 [95% CI 0.669-0.749]).

Conclusion: The 5A score is a novel, internally and externally validated inflammation-based tool for risk stratification of patients before surgical repair, potentially advancing individualized treatment.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04918108.

Keywords: 5A, Additive Anti-inflammatory Action for Aortopathy & Arteriopathy; ATAAD, acute type A aortic dissection; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve; AVR, aortic valve regurgitation; CT, computed tomography; GERAADA, German Registry for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection; ICU, intensive care unit; KNN, K-nearest neighbor; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; NB, naïve Bayes; RF, random forest; STI, systemic thrombo-inflammatory; SVM, support vector machine; WBC, white blood cell.

© 2022 The Authors.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Machine learning workflow of model construction and validation. AUC, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; Cr, creatinine; Hgb, hemoglobin; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; SII, systemic inflammatory-immune; STI, systemic thrombo-inflammatory; WBC, white blood cell. ∗The 12 Chinese university cardiovascular centers are listed in the Supplemental Materials.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Characterization and performances of the LASSO model and the machine learning model. A, Coefficient profile plots of the LASSO model. B, Penalty plot for the LASSO model. C, Dose-response relationship between risk score and mortality. D, Relative importance of 12 variables predictive from machine learning (ML) inflammatory mode (5A risk score) in the derivation cohort. E, Prediction distributions of patients with acute type A aortic dissection according to the risk of mortality in ML inflammatory mode (5A risk score). F, The standard rate and odds ratio of operative mortality among the fourth quartile of ML inflammatory mode (5A risk score). AUC, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; OR, odds ratio; STI, systemic thrombo-inflammatory.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of the prediction performances of the LASSO-based model, ML-based clinical model, and ML-based inflammatory model in the derivation cohort. A, The AUC of the LASSO-based model. B, The AUC of the ML base model. C, The AUC of the ML inflammatory model. D, Calibration curves of the LASSO-based model. E, Calibration curves of the ML base model. F, Calibration curves of the ML inflammatory model. G, Decision curves of the LASSO-based model. H, Decision curves of the ML base model. I, Decision curves of the ML inflammatory model. AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; ML, machine learning.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The prediction performances of the inflammatory model in the internal, external and total cohorts. A, The AUC of the inflammatory model in the internal cohort. B, The AUC of the inflammatory model in the external cohort. C, The AUC of the inflammatory model in the total cohort; D, Calibration curve of inflammatory model in the internal cohort; E, Calibration curve of inflammatory model in the external cohort; F, Calibration curve of inflammatory model in the total cohort; G, Decision curve of inflammatory model in the internal cohort; H, Decision curve of inflammatory model in the external cohort; I, Decision curve of inflammatory model in the total cohort. AUC = the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

References

    1. Erbel R., Aboyans V., Boileau C., et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J. 2014;35(41):2873–2926.
    1. Bossone E., Eagle K.A. Epidemiology and management of aortic disease: aortic aneurysms and acute aortic syndromes. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(5):331–348.
    1. Nashef S.A., Roques F., Michel P., Gauducheau E., Lemeshow S., Salamon R. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16(1):9–13.
    1. Roques F., Michel P., Goldstone A.R., Nashef S.A. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(9):881–882.
    1. Parsonnet V., Dean D., Bernstein A.D. A method of uniform stratification of risk for evaluating the results of surgery in acquired adult heart disease. Circulation. 1989;79(6 Pt 2):I3–12.
    1. Higgins T.L., Estafanous F.G., Loop F.D., Beck G.J., Blum J.M., Paranandi L. Stratification of morbidity and mortality outcome by preoperative risk factors in coronary artery bypass patients. A clinical severity score. JAMA. 1992;267(17):2344–2348.
    1. Tu J.V., Jaglal S.B., Naylor C.D. Multicenter validation of a risk index for mortality, intensive care unit stay, and overall hospital length of stay after cardiac surgery. Steering Committee of the Provincial Adult Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. Circulation. 1995;91(3):677–684.
    1. Zheng Z., Zhang L., Li X., Hu S., Chinese CABG Registry Study SinoSCORE: a logistically derived additive prediction model for post-coronary artery bypass grafting in-hospital mortality in a Chinese population. Front Med. 2013;7(4):477–485.
    1. Czerny M., Siepe M., Beyersdorf F., et al. Prediction of mortality rate in acute type A dissection: the German Registry for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection score. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;58(4):700–706.
    1. Sodeck G., Domanovits H., Schillinger M., et al. Pre-operative N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide predicts outcome in type A aortic dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(11):1092–1097.
    1. Li G., Wu X.W., Lu W.H., et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T: a biomarker for the early risk stratification of type-A acute aortic dissection? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;109(3):163–170.
    1. Zindovic I., Sjögren J., Bjursten H., et al. The coagulopathy of acute type A aortic Dissection: a Prospective, Observational Study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019;33(10):2746–2754.
    1. Benedetto U., Dimagli A., Kaura A., et al. Determinants of outcomes following surgery for type A acute aortic dissection: the UK National Adult Cardiac Surgical Audit. Eur Heart J. 2021;43(1):44–52.
    1. Allaire E., Schneider F., Saucy F., et al. New insight in aetiopathogenesis of aortic diseases. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37(5):531–537.
    1. Al’Aref S.J., Anchouche K., Singh G., et al. Clinical applications of machine learning in cardiovascular disease and its relevance to cardiac imaging. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(24):1975–1986.
    1. Kilic A. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cardiovascular health care. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(5):1323–1329.
    1. Than M.P., Pickering J.W., Sandoval Y., et al. Machine learning to predict the likelihood of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2019;140(11):899–909.
    1. Guo T., Fang Z., Yang G., et al. Machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in acute aortic dissection patients. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8
    1. Collins G.S., Reitsma J.B., Altman D.G., Moons K.G.M. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BJS Open. 2015;102(3):148–158.
    1. Overman D.M., Jacobs J.P., Prager R.L., et al. Report from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database Workforce: clarifying the definition of operative mortality. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2013;4(1):10–12.
    1. Zindovic I., Gudbjartsson T., Ahlsson A., et al. Malperfusion in acute type A aortic dissection: an update from the Nordic Consortium for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;157(4):1324–1333.e6.
    1. Tibshirani R.J. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J R Stat Soc B. 1996;58(1):267–288.
    1. Liu H., Zheng S.Q., Li X.Y., et al. Derivation and validation of a nomogram to predict in-hospital complications in children with tetralogy of Fallot repaired at an older age. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(21)
    1. Churpek M.M., Yuen T.C., Winslow C., Meltzer D.O., Kattan M.W., Edelson D.P. Multicenter comparison of machine learning methods and conventional regression for predicting clinical deterioration on the wards. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):368–374.
    1. Meurer W.J., Tolles J. Logistic regression diagnostics: understanding how well a model predicts outcomes. JAMA. 2017;317(10):1068–1069.
    1. DeLong E.R., DeLong D.M., Clarke-Pearson D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845.
    1. Pencina M.J., D’Agostino R.B., Steyerberg E.W. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):11–21.
    1. Hosmer D.W., Hosmer T., Le Cessie S., Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 1997;16(9):965–980.
    1. Wu Y.C., Lee W.C. Alternative performance measures for prediction models. PLoS One. 2014;9(3)
    1. Vickers A.J., Elkin E.B. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565–574.
    1. Alba A.C., Agoritsas T., Walsh M., et al. Discrimination and calibration of clinical prediction models: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2017;318(14):1377–1384.
    1. Tan M.E., Kelder J.C., Morshuis W.J., Schepens M.A. Risk stratification in acute type A dissection: proposition for a new scoring system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(6):2065–2069.
    1. Mehta R.H., Suzuki T., Hagan P.G., et al. Predicting death in patients with acute type a aortic dissection. Circulation. 2002;105(2):200–206.
    1. Rampoldi V., Trimarchi S., Eagle K.A., et al. Simple risk models to predict surgical mortality in acute type A aortic dissection: the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection score. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(1):55–61.
    1. Ghoreishi M., Wise E.S., Croal-Abrahams L., et al. A novel risk score predicts operative mortality after acute type A aortic dissection repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(6):1759–1766.
    1. Kuang J., Yang J., Wang Q., Yu C., Li Y., Fan R. A preoperative mortality risk assessment model for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020;20(1):508.
    1. Evangelista A., Isselbacher E.M., Bossone E., et al. Insights from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection: a 20-year experience of collaborative clinical research. Circulation. 2018;137(17):1846–1860.
    1. Pollari F., Sirch J., Fischlein T. About usefulness of GERAADA score. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60(4):1005.
    1. Heuts S., Adriaans B.P., Kawczynski M.J., et al. Editor’s Choice: extending aortic replacement beyond the proximal arch in acute type A aortic dissection: a meta-analysis of short term outcomes and long term actuarial survival. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022;63(5):674–687.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다