Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed106    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded15    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Comparison of the additive, logistic european system for cardiac operative risk (EuroSCORE) with the EuroSCORE 2 to predict mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery


1 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38000, France
2 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38000, France

Correspondence Address:
Michel Durand
Pole Anesthesie-reanimation, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38043, Grenoble
France
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_209_18

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2020  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 277-282

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (788 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the new EuroSCORE (ES) 2 prediction model in high-risk patients with the 2 other oldest additive ES (aES) and logistic ES (lES). Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing all cardiac surgery except heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device were included. The 3 risk scores were collected before surgery. We defined 4 high-risk groups of patients, patients ≥80 years, combined cardiac surgery, surgery of the thoracic aorta, and emergency cardiac surgery, and 2 low-risk groups, valve surgery and coronary artery bypass surgery. The predicted value of each score has been assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Results: The study had included 3301 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.3 − 4.6%). The AUC of ES2 was 0.81 (0.77 − 0.84), 0.82 (0.78 − 0.85), 0.70 (0.64 − 0.76), 0.79 (0.74 − 0.83), 0.85 (0.83 − 0.87), and 0.88 (0.86 − 0.90) for octogenarians, thoracic aortic surgery, combined surgery, emergency surgery, coronary surgery, and valve surgery, respectively. These ES2 AUC values were higher than those obtained with the aES for octogenarians, and with the lES for octogenarians and valve surgery. The ES2 calibration was better than the aES and lES calibration for the whole population, and low-risk groups. The ES2 calibration was superior to aES and lES in high-risk groups, except for octogenarians and thoracic aortic surgery compared to lES. Conclusion: In high-risk cardiac surgery patients, ES2 only marginally improve the predicted 30-day mortality in comparison to other ES.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




1 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38000, France
2 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38000, France

Correspondence Address:
Michel Durand
Pole Anesthesie-reanimation, Hopital Michallon, CHU Grenoble Alpes, F-38043, Grenoble
France
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_209_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the new EuroSCORE (ES) 2 prediction model in high-risk patients with the 2 other oldest additive ES (aES) and logistic ES (lES). Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing all cardiac surgery except heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device were included. The 3 risk scores were collected before surgery. We defined 4 high-risk groups of patients, patients ≥80 years, combined cardiac surgery, surgery of the thoracic aorta, and emergency cardiac surgery, and 2 low-risk groups, valve surgery and coronary artery bypass surgery. The predicted value of each score has been assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Results: The study had included 3301 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.3 − 4.6%). The AUC of ES2 was 0.81 (0.77 − 0.84), 0.82 (0.78 − 0.85), 0.70 (0.64 − 0.76), 0.79 (0.74 − 0.83), 0.85 (0.83 − 0.87), and 0.88 (0.86 − 0.90) for octogenarians, thoracic aortic surgery, combined surgery, emergency surgery, coronary surgery, and valve surgery, respectively. These ES2 AUC values were higher than those obtained with the aES for octogenarians, and with the lES for octogenarians and valve surgery. The ES2 calibration was better than the aES and lES calibration for the whole population, and low-risk groups. The ES2 calibration was superior to aES and lES in high-risk groups, except for octogenarians and thoracic aortic surgery compared to lES. Conclusion: In high-risk cardiac surgery patients, ES2 only marginally improve the predicted 30-day mortality in comparison to other ES.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article