OBJECTIVES: To compare and validate the new European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II with EuroSCORE at our institution. METHODS: The logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II were calculated on the entire patient cohort undergoing major cardiac surgery at our centre between January 2005 and December 2010. The goodness of fit was compared by means of the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) chi-squared test and the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curves of both scales applied to the same sample of patients. These analyses were repeated and stratified by the type of surgery. RESULTS: Mortality of 5.66% was observed, with estimated mortalities according to logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II of 9 and 4.46%, respectively. The AUC for EuroSCORE (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.85) was lower than that for EuroSCORE II (0.85, 95% CI 0.83-0.87) without the differences being statistically significant (P = 0.056). Both scales showed a good discriminative capacity for all the pathologies subgroups. The two scales showed poor calibration in the sample: EuroSCORE (χ(2) = 39.3, P(HL) < 0.001) and EuroSCORE II (χ(2) = 86.69, P(HL) < 0.001). The calibration of EuroSCORE was poor in the groups of patients undergoing coronary (P(HL) = 0.01), valve (P(HL) = 0.01) and combined coronary valve surgery (P(HL) = 0.012); and that of EuroSCORE II in the group of coronary (P(HL) = 0.001) and valve surgery (P(HL) < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSIONS: EuroSCORE II demonstrated good discriminative capacity and poor calibration in the patients undergoing major cardiac surgery at our centre.
OBJECTIVES: To compare and validate the new European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II with EuroSCORE at our institution. METHODS: The logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II were calculated on the entire patient cohort undergoing major cardiac surgery at our centre between January 2005 and December 2010. The goodness of fit was compared by means of the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) chi-squared test and the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curves of both scales applied to the same sample of patients. These analyses were repeated and stratified by the type of surgery. RESULTS: Mortality of 5.66% was observed, with estimated mortalities according to logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II of 9 and 4.46%, respectively. The AUC for EuroSCORE (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.85) was lower than that for EuroSCORE II (0.85, 95% CI 0.83-0.87) without the differences being statistically significant (P = 0.056). Both scales showed a good discriminative capacity for all the pathologies subgroups. The two scales showed poor calibration in the sample: EuroSCORE (χ(2) = 39.3, P(HL) < 0.001) and EuroSCORE II (χ(2) = 86.69, P(HL) < 0.001). The calibration of EuroSCORE was poor in the groups of patients undergoing coronary (P(HL) = 0.01), valve (P(HL) = 0.01) and combined coronary valve surgery (P(HL) = 0.012); and that of EuroSCORE II in the group of coronary (P(HL) = 0.001) and valve surgery (P(HL) < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSIONS: EuroSCORE II demonstrated good discriminative capacity and poor calibration in the patients undergoing major cardiac surgery at our centre.
Authors: F Roques; S A Nashef; P Michel; E Gauducheau; C de Vincentiis; E Baudet; J Cortina; M David; A Faichney; F Gabrielle; E Gams; A Harjula; M T Jones; P P Pintor; R Salamon; L Thulin Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Alessandro Parolari; Lorenzo L Pesce; Matteo Trezzi; Laura Cavallotti; Samer Kassem; Claudia Loardi; Davide Pacini; Elena Tremoli; Francesco Alamanni Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Cheng-Hon Yap; Christopher Reid; Michael Yii; Michael A Rowland; Morteza Mohajeri; Peter D Skillington; Siven Seevanayagam; Julian A Smith Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: M VAN GAMEREN; L M A KLIEVERIK; A STRUIJS; A C VENEMA; A P KAPPETEIN; A J J C BOGERS; J J M TAKKENBERG Journal: J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.888
Authors: E K Hogervorst; P M J Rosseel; L M G van de Watering; A Brand; M Bentala; B J M van der Meer; J G van der Bom Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Paweł Czub; Andrzej Cacko; Monika Gawałko; Emanuel Tataj; Jakub Poliński; Kacper Pawlik; Romuald Cichoń; Piotr Hendzel Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Luiz Augusto Ferreira Lisboa; Omar Asdrubal Vilca Mejia; Luiz Felipe Pinho Moreira; Luís Alberto Oliveira Dallan; Pablo Maria Alberto Pomerantzeff; Luís Roberto Palma Dallan; Maria Raquel B Massoti; Fabio B Jatene Journal: Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Date: 2014 Jan-Mar
Authors: Mehmet Kalender; Taylan Adademir; Mehmet Tasar; Ata Niyazi Ecevit; Okay Guven Karaca; Salih Salihi; Fuat Buyukbayrak; Mehmet Ozkokeli Journal: Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol Date: 2014-09-28
Authors: Isaac Newton Guimarães Andrade; Fernando Ribeiro de Moraes Neto; Tamirys Guimarães Andrade Journal: Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Date: 2014 Jan-Mar
Authors: Lars W Andersen; Mathias J Holmberg; Katherine M Berg; Maureen Chase; Michael N Cocchi; Christopher Sulmonte; Julia Balkema; Mary MacDonald; Sophia Montissol; Venkatachalam Senthilnathan; David Liu; Kamal Khabbaz; Adam Lerner; Victor Novack; Xiaowen Liu; Michael W Donnino Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 9.097