Reliability of New Scores in Predicting Perioperative Mortality After Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery: A Comparison With The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score and Logistic EuroSCORE (original) (raw)

Abstract

Background: There is still a wide debate concerning the performance of commonly used risk prediction models in assessing the risk of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. This study was designed to compare the performances of European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II and age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score with those of Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and logistic EuroSCORE in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. Methods: Data on 1,758 consecutive patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in a 6-year period were retrieved from 3 prospective institutional databases. Discriminatory power was assessed using the c-index. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. Results: In-hospital mortality rate was 1.4%. The discriminatory power was similar in all algorithms (area under the curve 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.88 for logistic EuroSCORE; 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to ؊0.88 for EuroSCORE II; 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.88 for ACEF; 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93 for STS score) and not significantly different (p values > 0.05 for all tests). The EuroSCORE II had a better calibration, being the only score with nonsignificant associated statistics (unreliability test, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Spiegelhalter Z-test for calibration accuracy). Nonetheless, EuroSCORE II calibration plot highlighted a trend over under-prediction. Conclusions: The EuroSCORE II is a good predictor of perioperative mortality in isolated aortic valve surgery, with lower discrimination if compared with STS and a better calibration when compared with logistic EuroSCORE, ACEF, and STS scores. Its performance is optimal in the lowest tertile of patients, whereas it under-predicts mortality afterward. None of these algorithms seems suitable for risk estimation in mid and high-risk patients that are the ones who might benefit most from transcatheter procedures.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (26)

  1. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, et al. Updated stan- dardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the valve academic research consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1438 -54.
  2. Ben-Dor I, Gaglia MA Jr, Barbash IM, et al. Comparison between Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and logistic EuroSCORE for predicting mortality in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2011;12:345-9.
  3. Parolari A, Pesce LL, Trezzi M, et al. Performance of EuroSCORE in CABG and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: single institution experience and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2009;30:297- 304.
  4. Parolari A, Pesce LL, Trezzi M, et al. EuroSCORE perfor- mance in valve surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;89:787-93.
  5. Lebreton G, Merle S, Inamo J, et al. Limitations in the inter-observer reliability of EuroSCORE: what should change in EuroSCORE II? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40: 1304 -8.
  6. Siregar S, Groenwold RH, de Heer F, Bots ML, van der Graaf Y, van Herwerden LA. Performance of the original EuroSCORE. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:746-54.
  7. Tran DT, Dupuis JY, Mesana T, Ruel M, Nathan HJ. Com- parison of the EuroSCORE and Cardiac Anesthesia Risk Evaluation (CARE) score for risk-adjusted mortality analysis in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:307-13.
  8. Wendt D, Osswald BR, Kayser K, et al. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score is superior to the EuroSCORE determining mortality in high risk patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:468 -74.
  9. Mack MJ. Risk scores for predicting outcomes in valvular heart disease: how useful? Curr Cardiol Rep 2011;13:107-12.
  10. Grossi EA, Schwartz CF, Yu PJ, et al. High-risk aortic valve replacement: are the outcomes as bad as predicted? Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:102-6.
  11. Barili F, Di Gregorio O, Capo A, et al. Aortic valve replace- ment: reliability of EuroSCORE in predicting early out- comes. Int J Cardiol 2010;144:343-5.
  12. Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:734 -44.
  13. Chalmers J, Pullan M, Fabri B, et al. Validation of EuroSCORE II in a modern cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
  14. Grant SW, Hickey GL, Dimarakis I, et al. How does EuroSCORE II perform in UK cardiac surgery; an analysis of 23 740 patients from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National Database. Heart 2012;98:1568-72.
  15. Barili F, Pacini D, Capo A, et al. Does EuroSCORE II perform better than its original versions? A multicentre validation study. Eur Heart J 2013;34:22-9.
  16. Biancari F, Vasques F, Mikkola R, Martin M, Lahtinen J, Heikkinen J. Validation of EuroSCORE II in patients under- going coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1930 -5.
  17. Ranucci M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L, Frigiola A, Pelis- sero G. Risk of assessing mortality risk in elective cardiac operations: age, creatinine, ejection fraction, and the law of parsimony. Circulation 2009;119:3053-61.
  18. Ranucci M, Castelvecchio S, Conte M, et al. The easier, the better: age, creatinine, ejection fraction score for operative mortality risk stratification in a series of 29,659 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:581-6.
  19. Ranucci M, Guarracino F, Castelvecchio S, Baldassarri R, Covello RD, Landoni G. Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve procedures. The limits of risk scores. Interact Cardio- vasc Thorac Surg 2010;11:138 -41.
  20. Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone AR, Nashef SA. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J 2003;24:881-2.
  21. Bartfay E, Bartfay WJ. Accuracy assessment of prediction in patient outcomes. J Eval Clin Pract 2008;14:1-10.
  22. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assump- tions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361-87.
  23. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and Sϩ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:77.
  24. Harrell FE Jr. Regression modelling strategies. New York, NY: Springer; 2001.
  25. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for tradi- tional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010;21:128 -38.
  26. Janssen KJ, Donders AR, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Missing cova- riate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:721-7.