Comparison of 19 pre-operative risk stratification models in open-heart surgery

Competence Centre for Clinical Research, Lund University, Lund, Skåne, Sweden
European Heart Journal (Impact Factor: 14.72). 05/2006; 27(7):867-74. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi720
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare 19 risk score algorithms with regard to their validity to predict 30-day and 1-year mortality after cardiac surgery.
Risk factors for patients undergoing heart surgery between 1996 and 2001 at a single centre were prospectively collected. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to describe the performance and accuracy. Survival at 1 year and cause of death were obtained in all cases. The study included 6222 cardiac surgical procedures. Actual mortality was 2.9% at 30 days and 6.1% at 1 year. Discriminatory power for 30-day and 1-year mortality in cardiac surgery was highest for logistic (0.84 and 0.77) and additive (0.84 and 0.77) European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) algorithms, followed by Cleveland Clinic (0.82 and 0.76) and Magovern (0.82 and 0.76) scoring systems. None of the other 15 risk algorithms had a significantly better discriminatory power than these four. In coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-only surgery, EuroSCORE followed by New York State (NYS) and Cleveland Clinic risk score showed the highest discriminatory power for 30-day and 1-year mortality.
EuroSCORE, Cleveland Clinic, and Magovern risk algorithms showed superior performance and accuracy in open-heart surgery, and EuroSCORE, NYS, and Cleveland Clinic in CABG-only surgery. Although the models were originally designed to predict early mortality, the 1-year mortality prediction was also reasonably accurate.

  • Source
    • "To this aim, different risk models have been introduced and refined within the last two decades, including either scores dedicated to isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures , or scores for CABG with associated procedures [1]. Within Europe, the EuroSCORE I [2] [3] and II [4] are the most frequently used risk-stratification models and are intended to be used for 'all adult cardiac surgical' procedures. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Different risk models have been introduced and refined in the past in order to improve standards of care. However, the predictive power of any risk algorithms can decline over time due to changes in surgical practice and the population's risk profile. The present study aimed to develop and validate a risk model for predicting operative mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure (HF) undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR). The study population included 525 patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular remodelling referred to our centre for SVR. All patients underwent surgical reshaping; coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 489 (93%) patients and mitral valve (MV) repair in 142 (27%). Operative mortality was defined as death within 30 days after surgery. All patients received an operative risk assessment using the logistic EuroSCORE and the ACEF score. Better accuracy was achieved by the ACEF score (0.771) compared with the EuroSCORE (0.747). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, forcing the ACEF score in the model, three additional factors remained as independent predictors of operative mortality: atrial fibrillation, NYHA Class 3-4 and MV surgery (odds ratio 2.2, 2.6 and 2.1, respectively) and were computed in the ACEF-SVR. The ACEF-SVR score demonstrated an improved accuracy in respect of the ACEF score (from 0.771 to 0.792) and a better calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2) of 5.40, P = 0.714). The ACEF-SVR score, starting from a simplified model of risk enabled improvement in the accuracy and calibration of the model, tailoring the risk to a specific population of patients with HF undergoing a specific surgical procedure. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 02/2015; 47(5). DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezv023 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Several scores are currently used in cardiac surgery [1]. The widely utilized European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) predicts 30-day mortality after cardiac surgery [2]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Validation studies of European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) have been limited to European datasets. Therefore, the aims of this study were to assess the performance of EuroSCORE II in a large multicentre US database, and compare it with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM). In addition, implications for patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were explored. EuroSCORE II and the STS-PROM were calculated for 50 588 patients from a multi-institutional statewide database of all cardiac surgeries performed since 2003. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), observed vs expected (O:E) ratios and calibration plots. Analyses were performed for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 40 871), aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 4107), AVR + CABG (n = 3480), mitral valve (MV) replacement (n = 1071) and MV repair (n = 1059). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1%. EuroSCORE II was outperformed by the STS-PROM in the overall cohort with regard to discrimination (AUC = 0.77 vs 0.81, respectively; P< 0.001) and calibration (O:E = 0.68 vs 0.80, respectively). Discrimination for CABG was worse with EuroSCORE II (AUC = 0.77 vs STS-PROM: 0.81, P < 0.001). For other procedures discrimination was similar: AVR (AUC = 0.71 vs STS-PROM: 0.74, P = 0.40), AVR + CABG (AUC = 0.72 vs STS-PROM: 0.74, P = 0.47), MV repair (AUC = 0.82 vs STS-PROM: 0.86, P = 0.55) and MV replacement (AUC = 0.78 vs STS-PROM: 0.79, P = 0.69). Calibration of EuroSCORE II was worse for CABG (O:E = 0.68 vs STS-PROM: 0.80), similar in AVR + CABG (O:E = 0.76 vs STS-PROM: 0.70) and MV repair (O:E = 0.64 vs STS-PROM: 0.67), while EuroSCORE II may be more accurate in AVR (O:E = 0.96 vs STS-PROM: 0.76). Performance of both models improved when only recent cases (after 1 January 2008) were used. Ongoing TAVI trials aimed at patients with an estimated 4-10% risk of mortality are enrolling patients with mean estimated risks of 6.2% (EuroSCORE II) or 6.0% (STS-PROM), and an actual mortality rate of 4.6% (EuroSCORE II) or 4.8% (STS-PROM). In a large US multicentre database, the STS-PROM performs better than EuroSCORE II for CABG. However, EuroSCORE II is a reasonable alternative in low-risk CABG patients and in those undergoing other cardiac surgical procedures. Clinical trials and physicians that use these scores recruit and treat patients who are at a lower risk than anticipated. This potentially leads to overtreatment with an investigational device. Decision-making should not solely be based on risk scores, but should comprise multidisciplinary heart team discussions.
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 02/2014; DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezu033 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The mediastinitis is a serious postoperative complication of cardiac surgery, with an incidence of 0.4 to 5% and mortality between 14 and 47%. Several models were proposed to assess risk of mediastinitis after cardiac surgery.


Available from