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

Interventional Cardiology Department, Erasmus Medical Center, Thoraxcenter, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.46). 02/2010; 159(2):323-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.11.026
Source: PubMed


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.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "Although a number of methods for risk stratification of patients for cardiac surgery have been reported, they have limitations because their ability to predict actual events is reduced in high-risk and elderly patients.5,6 Moreover, no TAVI-specific scoring system for those patients has been developed.7,8 Therefore, a multidisciplinary heart team approach is currently recommended from the early stages of patient selection.9 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose We sought to evaluate the clinical usefulness of decision making by a multidisciplinary heart team for identifying potential candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Materials and Methods The multidisciplinary team consisted of two interventional cardiologists, two cardiovascular surgeons, one cardiac imaging specialist, and two cardiac anesthesiologists. Results Out of 60 patients who were screened as potential TAVI candidates, 31 patients were initially recommended as appropriate for TAVI, and 20 of these 31 eventually underwent TAVI. Twenty-two patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), and 17 patients received only medical treatment. Patients who underwent TAVI and medical therapy were older than those who underwent surgical AVR (p<0.001). The logistic Euroscore was significantly highest in the TAVI group and lowest in the surgical AVR group (p=0.012). Most patients in the TAVI group (90%) and the surgical AVR group (91%) had severe cardiac symptoms, but only 47% in the medical therapy group had severe symptoms. The cumulative percentages of survival without re-hospitalization or all-cause death at 6 months for the surgical AVR, TAVI, and medical therapy groups were 84%, 75%, and 28%, respectively (p=0.007, by log-rank). Conclusion TAVI was recommended in half of the potential candidates following a multidisciplinary team approach and was eventually performed in one-third of these patients. One-third of the patients who were initially considered potential candidates received surgical AVR with favorable clinical outcomes.
    Yonsei Medical Journal 09/2014; 55(5):1246-52. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1246 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "These models were developed and validated in a standard surgical risk population. The predictive power of both models is therefore suboptimal in high-risk patients with valvular disease, although the STS score has shown to outperform the Logistic EuroSCORE [8]. These models are even more limited in application to patients who are considered at prohibitive risk for cardiac surgery, a cohort that could particularly benefit from TAVI. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavours of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 10/2012; 42(5):S45-60. DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezs533 · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The STS score system is a very complex model and difficult to obtain for all routine patients. [11,12] In the study by Dewey and Herbert [13] which compared the accuracy of the old LES and the STS in the highest risk patients, in the latter the observed mortality was much closer to the expected with an underestimation of 0.8 rather than overestimation by factor 3. STS risk algorithm, albeit not perfect, is soundly based on surgical outcome. It has clearly become the preferred method of risk assessment and evaluation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Operative risk scoring algorithms identify patients with severe AS for transcatheter valve implantation in whom the anticipated operative mortality for conventional surgery would be considered prohibitive. We compared the three risk scores EuroScore 1 (LES), society of thoracic surgeons’ (STS) score and ACEF (age-creatinine-ejection fraction score) to the readjusted EuroScore 2 recently presented. Methods We reviewed all consecutive patients receiving either isolated conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR) or transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) in a two-year period (n = 206). 30-days mortality was considered as primary endpoint. Results TA-TAVI was performed in 76 patients, isolated cAVR in 130 patients. Overall mortality was 4.4% (TA-TAVI: 7.9%; cAVR: 2.3%). EuroScore 2 showed a good estimation for the entire population as well as within the subgroups: 4,02 ± 5,36% (TA-TAVI: 6.16 ± 7.14%, cAVR: 2.77 ± 3.42%). Predicted mortalities as assessed by LES were largely overestimated (TA-TAVI: 27.4 ± 20.9% cAVR: 10.6 ± 10.6%, sensitivity: 0.89, specificity: 0.71). STS predicted mortality was 6.3 ± 4.4% for TA-TAVI patients as to 3.2 ± 3.1% for cAVR patients (sens.: 0.22, spec.: 0.96) and ACEF predicted a mortality of 1.16 ± 0.36% for cAVR and 1.58 ± 0.59% for TA-TAVI patients (sens.: 0.78, spec.: 0.89). Conclusion The newly refined EuroScore 2 showed a good correlation within the studied population. For the individual patient, new cut-offs will have to be defined to triage patients for TAVI procedure. A drawback for complex score systems such as EuroScore and STS is the lack of recalibration to smaller populations as encountered in even large single centers.
    Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 09/2012; 7(1). DOI:10.1186/1749-8090-7-89 · 1.03 Impact Factor
Show more