Performance of EuroSCORE II Compared to EuroSCORE I in Predicting Operative and Mid-term Mortality of Patients from a Single Center After Combined Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Aortic Valve Replacement
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: The performance comparison of the recently introduced European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II in predicting operative as well as mid-term mortality, with its previous version in patients after combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
Methods: This retrospective analysis included 216 patients operated on at one institution from 01/1999 to 12/2005. Accuracy and calibration of EuroSCORE I and II were assessed by plotting the areas under the receiver operator curves and comparing observed and predicted mortalities.
Results: EuroSCORE II showed, regarding early mortality, a slightly higher discriminatory accuracy with an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.77, while additive and logistic EuroSCORE I areas were 0.749, 0.75, respectively. The highest specificity and sensitivity level was approached for EuroSCORE II at a predicted mortality of 4.4 %. Receiver operator curves concerning mid-term mortality revealed areas for additive, logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II of 0.745, 0.739 and 0.718 with the highest accuracy levels at predicted mortalities of 6.5, 6.48 and 3.88 %, respectively. Mean predicted mortalities by logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II were 8.35 and 3.99 %, respectively, while overall observed operative mortality was 6.3 %. In "high-risk" patients (EuroSCORE > 13), EuroSCORE II underestimated early and mid-term outcomes.
Conclusions: Regarding operative mortality, EuroSCORE II showed in this study a slightly higher discriminatory accuracy than EuroSCORE I. There were no significant differences in the calibration of the two model versions in "low-" and "moderate-risk" patients regarding early as well as mid-term mortality. Analyses in larger patient populations will contribute to further model improvement.
Gao F, Shan L, Wang C, Meng X, Chen J, Han L Int J Gen Med. 2021; 14:8509-8519.
PMID: 34824547 PMC: 8610380. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S338819.
Rachwalik M, Obremska M, Zysko D, Matusiewicz M, Protasiewicz M, Jasinski M Physiol Res. 2021; 70(4):543-550.
PMID: 34062078 PMC: 8820548. DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.934661.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality risk prediction models in adult cardiac surgery.
Sinha S, Dimagli A, Dixon L, Gaudino M, Caputo M, Vohra H Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021; 33(5):673-686.
PMID: 34041539 PMC: 8557799. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivab151.
Doerr F, Heldwein M, Bayer O, Sabashnikov A, Weymann A, Dohmen P Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2015; 21:172-8.
PMID: 26279053 PMC: 4559007. DOI: 10.12659/MSMBR.895004.
Frailty in cardiothoracic surgery: systematic review of the literature.
Furukawa H, Tanemoto K Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 63(8):425-33.
PMID: 25916404 DOI: 10.1007/s11748-015-0553-8.