Relationship between the logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score in patients implanted with the CoreValve ReValving system--a Bern-Rotterdam Study.
ABSTRACT Surgical risk scores, such as the logistic EuroSCORE (LES) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS) score, are commonly used to identify high-risk or "inoperable" patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In Europe, the LES plays an important role in selecting patients for implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve System. What is less clear, however, is the role of the STS score of these patients and the relationship between the LES and STS.
The purpose of this study is to examine the correlation between LES and STS scores and their performance characteristics in high-risk surgical patients implanted with the Medtronic CoreValve System.
All consecutive patients (n = 168) in whom a CoreValve bioprosthesis was implanted between November 2005 and June 2009 at 2 centers (Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) were included for analysis. Patient demographics were recorded in a prospective database. Logistic EuroSCORE and STS scores were calculated on a prospective and retrospective basis, respectively.
Observed mortality was 11.1%. The mean LES was 3 times higher than the mean STS score (LES 20.2% +/- 13.9% vs STS 6.7% +/- 5.8%). Based on the various LES and STS cutoff values used in previous and ongoing TAVI trials, 53% of patients had an LES > or =15%, 16% had an STS > or =10%, and 40% had an LES > or =20% or STS > or =10%. Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a reasonable (moderate) linear relationship between the LES and STS scores, r = 0.58, P < .001. Although the STS score outperformed the LES, both models had suboptimal discriminatory power (c-statistic, 0.49 for LES and 0.69 for STS) and calibration.
Clinical judgment and the Heart Team concept should play a key role in selecting patients for TAVI, whereas currently available surgical risk score algorithms should be used to guide clinical decision making.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The original European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) has been recently updated as EuroSCORE II to optimize its efficacy in cardiac surgery, but its performance has been poorly evaluated for predicting 30-day mortality in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Consecutive patients (n = 250) treated with TAVR were included in this analysis. Transapical access was used in 60 patients, while 190 procedures were performed using a transfemoral approach. Calibration (risk-adjusted mortality ratio) and discrimination (C-statistic and U-statistic) were calculated for the logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) scores for predicting 30-day mortality. Observed mortality was 7.6% in the overall population (6.3% and 11.7% for the transfemoral and transapical cohorts, respectively). Predicted mortality was 22.6 ± 12.8% by logistic EuroSCORE, 7.7 ± 5.8% by EuroSCORE II, and 7.3 ± 4.1% by STS score. The risk-adjusted mortality ratio was 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 0.58) for logistic EuroSCORE, 0.99 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.69) for EuroSCORE II, and 1.05 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.79) for STS score. Moderate discrimination was observed with EuroSCORE II (C-index 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.79, p = 0.02) compared to the logistic EuroSCORE (C-index 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76, p = 0.06) and STS (C-index 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p = 0.23) score, without a significant difference among the 3 risk scores. Discrimination was slightly better in the transfemoral cohort compared to the transapical cohort with the 3 risk scores. In conclusion, EuroSCORE II and the STS score are better calibrated than the logistic EuroSCORE but have moderate discrimination for predicting 30-day mortality after TAVR.The American journal of cardiology 01/2013; · 3.58 Impact Factor
- Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 03/2014; · 1.06 Impact Factor
- Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 06/2012; 10(6):679-81.