2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.10.140
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Height alone, rather than body surface area, suffices for risk estimation in ascending aortic aneurysm

Abstract: Compared with indices including weight, the simpler height-based ratio (excluding weight and BSA calculations) yields satisfactory results for evaluating the risk of natural complications in patients with TAAA.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
143
1
5

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 188 publications
(152 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(31 reference statements)
3
143
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Multiple linear regression was used to compare the three outcomes across the three AHI-based severity groups, adjusting for age, sex, race, BSA, systolic BP, antihypertensive medication status, diabetes, smoking, and cholesterol levels. We ran an additional model in which height was substituted for BSA [20]. Effect modification by age, sex, and race/ethnicity were tested by including each cross-product terms in the models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple linear regression was used to compare the three outcomes across the three AHI-based severity groups, adjusting for age, sex, race, BSA, systolic BP, antihypertensive medication status, diabetes, smoking, and cholesterol levels. We ran an additional model in which height was substituted for BSA [20]. Effect modification by age, sex, and race/ethnicity were tested by including each cross-product terms in the models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interventional recommendations based on ASI cut‐offs are ≤2.05 (low risk = radiographic follow‐up), 2.08‐2.95 (moderate risk = close radiographic follow‐up), 3.00‐3.95 (high risk = elective repair recommended), and 4 cm/m 2 (severe risk = elective surgical repair as soon as possible). Recently, we introduced the AHI that simply divides the aortic size (maximum diameter) by patient height (does not involve complex BSA measurements) . Cut‐offs identifying risk categories for AHI are ≤2.43 (low risk), 2.44‐3.17 (moderate risk), 3.21‐4.06 (high risk), and ≥4.1 cm/m (severe risk) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, we introduced the AHI that simply divides the aortic size (maximum diameter) by patient height (does not involve complex BSA measurements) . Cut‐offs identifying risk categories for AHI are ≤2.43 (low risk), 2.44‐3.17 (moderate risk), 3.21‐4.06 (high risk), and ≥4.1 cm/m (severe risk) . Surgical recommendations are similar among ASI and AHI for each risk category, respectively, as they correlate with the same risk quantitatively (Table ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work by our group has addressed the natural history of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17); herein, the aim of our current study is to assess the natural course of the aortic root specifically in MFS patients. We feel that the focus on the MFS aortic root may produce information of clinical value, as the root is the source of lethal complications in these patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%