Performance of the EuroSCORE Models in Emergency Cardiac Surgery

Grant, Stuart W; Hickey, Graeme L.; Dimarakis, Ioannis; Cooper, Graham; Jenkins, David P.; Uppal, Rakesh; Buchan, Iain; Bridgewater, Ben

doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.111.000018

Cited by 46 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among all these articles, 31 studies were considered for more detailed evaluation. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were fulfilled by 24 studies that were selected for data extraction and analysis; 22 studies were included in the main analysis, 3,7-27 and 2 studies were included only for subgroup analysis 28,29 because they reported on surgery categories extracted from datasets of other included articles. 10,23 Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Table 1 shows the principal characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When nonelective surgery or patients at greater preoperative risk were analyzed as high risk, [12][13][14]17,20,[23][24][25]27,28 the euroSCORE II had a lower discrimination estimated by an AUC of 0.752 (95% CI, 0.676-0.828) and a nonsignificant underestimation of prediction: O/E ratio 1.253 (95% CI, 0.936-1.570) and O/E difference 1.859 (95% CI, À0.615 to 4.332).…”

Section: High-risk Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: A meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 145,592 cardiac surgery procedures

Guida

Mastro

Scrascia

et al. 2014

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: High-risk Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: A meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 145,592 cardiac surgery procedures

Guida

Mastro

Scrascia

et al. 2014

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, the risk of mortality postsurgery for IE is estimated using predictive scoring systems that have been derived from patient databases where most of the patients had had cardiac operations other than those for endocarditis . Because of this inherent limitation, the utility of these aspecific predictive systems for patients with IE has been called into question . In fact, specific scores to predict in‐hospital death postsurgery in patients with IE have also been devised, but with no external validation, and their impact in clinical practice is unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple Scoring System to Predict In‐Hospital Mortality After Surgery for Infective Endocarditis

Gatti

Perrotti

Obadia

et al. 2017

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAspecific scoring systems are used to predict the risk of death postsurgery in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). The purpose of the present study was both to analyze the risk factors for in‐hospital death, which complicates surgery for IE, and to create a mortality risk score based on the results of this analysis.Methods and ResultsOutcomes of 361 consecutive patients (mean age, 59.1±15.4 years) who had undergone surgery for IE in 8 European centers of cardiac surgery were recorded prospectively, and a risk factor analysis (multivariable logistic regression) for in‐hospital death was performed. The discriminatory power of a new predictive scoring system was assessed with the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Score validation procedures were carried out. Fifty‐six (15.5%) patients died postsurgery. BMI >27 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P=0.049), estimated glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min (OR, 3.52; P<0.0001), New York Heart Association class IV (OR, 2.11; P=0.024), systolic pulmonary artery pressure >55 mm Hg (OR, 1.78; P=0.032), and critical state (OR, 2.37; P=0.017) were independent predictors of in‐hospital death. A scoring system was devised to predict in‐hospital death postsurgery for IE (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.780; 95% CI, 0.734–0.822). The score performed better than 5 of 6 scoring systems for in‐hospital death after cardiac surgery that were considered.ConclusionsA simple scoring system based on risk factors for in‐hospital death was specifically created to predict mortality risk postsurgery in patients with IE.

show abstract

“…Other series show disappointing results with values of P < 0.05, like that of Amr et al in Egypt and that of Wang et al in China, both of which are studied in patients undergoing valvular surgery, or as the multicentric study by Grant et al made on the largest number of patients undergoing cardiac surgery in emergency (3342). These authors conclude that there is a significant difference between their observed mortality and their expected mortality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

External validation of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II in a Tunisian population

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the predictive model (EuroSCORE II) on a Tunisian population to validate its use in our country. Methods This is a retrospective study of data from 418 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016 in the department of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery of the Sahloul University Hospital of Sousse. The EuroSCORE ΙΙ is calculated using the application validated on the site http://www.euroscore.org. The performance of the score is evaluated by analyzing its discriminative power by constructing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and analyzing its calibration using the Hosmer‐Lemeshow statistics. Results The EuroSCORE II shows good discriminative power in our population with an area under the ROC curve more than 0.7 in all study groups (0.864 ± 0.032 for general cardiac surgery, 0.822 ± 0.061 for coronary surgery, 0.864 ± 0.052 for valvular surgery, and 0.900 ± 0.041 for urgent cardiac surgery). The model appears to be calibrated as well by obtaining P values above the statistical significance level of 0.05 (0.638 for general cardiac surgery, 0.543 for coronary surgery, 0.179 for valvular surgery, and 0.082 for urgent cardiac surgery). Conclusion The EuroSCORE II presents acceptable performance in our population, attested by a good discriminative power and an adequate calibration.

show abstract

Performance of the EuroSCORE Models in Emergency Cardiac Surgery

Cited by 46 publications

References 37 publications

Performance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: A meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 145,592 cardiac surgery procedures

Performance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: A meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 145,592 cardiac surgery procedures

Simple Scoring System to Predict In‐Hospital Mortality After Surgery for Infective Endocarditis

External validation of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II in a Tunisian population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About