Niv Ad1, Sari D Holmes2, Jay Patel2, Graciela Pritchard2, Deborah J Shuman2, Linda Halpin2. 1. Cardiac Surgery Research, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. Electronic address: niv.ad@inova.org. 2. Cardiac Surgery Research, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II was developed to reflect a more current dataset and evidence-based improvements in cardiac surgery. In the United States, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score is more accepted owing to relatively high predictive value despite less user friendliness and inapplicability to some cardiac surgeries. We compared the precision of EuroSCORE II with EuroSCORE I and the STS risk score for operative mortality. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for all cardiac surgery patients at a single center since 2001 (N = 11,788). A secondary analysis for patients with cardiac surgery not accommodated by the STS model compared only EuroSCORE II and I (N = 5,880). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were performed for operative mortality to determine the discriminative ability for each score. RESULTS: Observed operative mortality was 1.8%. Mean predicted mortality for STS risk score, EuroSCORE II, and EuroSCORE I was 2.7%, 3.3%, and 7.8%, respectively. The discriminative ability for operative mortality by area under the curve for EuroSCORE II, EuroSCORE I, and STS risk score was 0.844, 0.819, and 0.846, respectively. In secondary analyses comparing EuroSCORE II with EuroSCORE I, risk scores were correlated (rs = 0.83, p < 0.001). However, for operative mortality (observed, 4%), EuroSCORE II had better absolute prediction and discriminative ability (expected, 5.8%; area under the curve 0.754) than EuroSCORE I (expected, 12.5%; area under the curve 0.688). CONCLUSIONS: EuroSCORE II had better predictive discrimination for operative mortality than EuroSCORE I, which greatly overestimated this risk. EuroSCORE II fared well compared with the STS risk score. The inclusive nature of EuroSCORE II for numerous procedures provides more flexibility than the STS score for complex procedures. EuroSCORE II should be considered for calculating risk score for complex cardiac surgical patients.
BACKGROUND: The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II was developed to reflect a more current dataset and evidence-based improvements in cardiac surgery. In the United States, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score is more accepted owing to relatively high predictive value despite less user friendliness and inapplicability to some cardiac surgeries. We compared the precision of EuroSCORE II with EuroSCORE I and the STS risk score for operative mortality. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for all cardiac surgery patients at a single center since 2001 (N = 11,788). A secondary analysis for patients with cardiac surgery not accommodated by the STS model compared only EuroSCORE II and I (N = 5,880). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were performed for operative mortality to determine the discriminative ability for each score. RESULTS: Observed operative mortality was 1.8%. Mean predicted mortality for STS risk score, EuroSCORE II, and EuroSCORE I was 2.7%, 3.3%, and 7.8%, respectively. The discriminative ability for operative mortality by area under the curve for EuroSCORE II, EuroSCORE I, and STS risk score was 0.844, 0.819, and 0.846, respectively. In secondary analyses comparing EuroSCORE II with EuroSCORE I, risk scores were correlated (rs = 0.83, p < 0.001). However, for operative mortality (observed, 4%), EuroSCORE II had better absolute prediction and discriminative ability (expected, 5.8%; area under the curve 0.754) than EuroSCORE I (expected, 12.5%; area under the curve 0.688). CONCLUSIONS: EuroSCORE II had better predictive discrimination for operative mortality than EuroSCORE I, which greatly overestimated this risk. EuroSCORE II fared well compared with the STS risk score. The inclusive nature of EuroSCORE II for numerous procedures provides more flexibility than the STS score for complex procedures. EuroSCORE II should be considered for calculating risk score for complex cardiac surgical patients.
Authors: Nadia Bouabdallaoui; Susanna R Stevens; Torsten Doenst; Mark C Petrie; Nawwar Al-Attar; Imtiaz S Ali; Andrew P Ambrosy; Anna K Barton; Raymond Cartier; Alexander Cherniavsky; Pierre Demondion; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Robert R Favaloro; Sinisa Gradinac; Petra Heinisch; Anil Jain; Marek Jasinski; Jerome Jouan; Renato A K Kalil; Lorenzo Menicanti; Robert E Michler; Vivek Rao; Peter K Smith; Marian Zembala; Eric J Velazquez; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Jean L Rouleau Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Richard Tanner; Barbara Moran; Ronan Margey; Gavin Blake; Catherine McGorrian; Jacqueline Geraghty; Susan Groarke; Jana Boleckova; John Hurley; Andrew Roy; David Barton; Declan Sugrue; Ivan P Casserly Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Reilly D Hobbs; Elizabeth L Norton; Xiaoting Wu; Cristen J Willer; Scott L Hummell; Richard L Prager; Jonathan Afilalo; Whitney E Hornsby; Bo Yang Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Mohammed Y Khanji; Fabrizio Ricci; Victor Galusko; Baskar Sekar; C Anwar A Chahal; Laura Ceriello; Sabina Gallina; Simon Kennon; Wael I Awad; Adrian Ionescu Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Hüseyin Kuplay; Sevinç Bayer Erdoğan; Murat Baştopçu; Eren Karpuzoğlu; Halit Er Journal: Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 0.332