Validación prospectiva multicéntrica del EuroSCORE II en Argentina / Multicenter prospective validation of the EuroSCORE II in Argentina

Resumen Objetivo: Validar, en forma prospectiva y en múltiples centros, la precisión y utilidad clínica del European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) para predecir la mortalidad operatoria de la cirugía cardíaca en centros de Argentina Método: Entre enero de 2012 y febrero de 2018 se incluyeron en forma prospectiva 2,000 pacientes consecutivos que fueron sometidos a cirugía cardíaca en diferentes centros de Argentina. El punto final fue mortalidad hospitalaria por cualquier causa. La discriminación, calibración, precisión y utilidad clínica del EuroSCORE II se evaluaron en la cohorte global y en los diferentes tipos de cirugías, basándose en las curvas Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC), bondad de ajuste de Hosmer-Lemeshow, razón de mortalidad observada/esperada, índice de Shannon y curvas de decisión. Resultados: El área ROC del EuroSCORE II estuvo entre 0.73 y 0.80 para todo tipo de cirugía, y el valor más bajo fue para la cirugía coronaria. La mortalidad observada y esperada fue 4.3 y 3.0%, respectivamente (p = 0.034). El análisis de la curva de decisión demostró un beneficio neto positivo para los umbrales por debajo de 0.24 para todo tipo de cirugía. Conclusiones: El EuroSCORE II tuvo un desempeño adecuado en términos de discriminación y calibración para todos los tipos de cirugía, aunque algo inferior para la cirugía coronaria. Si bien en términos generales subestimó el riesgo en los grupos de riesgo intermedio, el comportamiento global fue aceptable. El EuroSCORE II podría considerarse una opción de modelo genérico y actualizado de estratificación del riesgo operatorio para predecir la mortalidad hospitalaria de la cirugía cardíaca en nuestro contexto.

Abstract Objective: To validate prospectively in multiple centers, the accuracy and clinical utility of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II) to predict the operative mortality of cardiac surgery in Argentina. Methods: Between January 2012 and February 2018, 2,000 consecutive adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery in different centers in Argentina were prospectively included. The end-point was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Discrimination, calibration, precision and clinical utility of the EuroSCORE II were evaluated in the global cohort and in the different types of surgeries, based on ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) curves, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, observed/expected mortality ratio, Shannon index and decision curves analysis. Results: ROC area of the EuroSCORE II was between 0.73 and 0.80 for all types of surgery, being the lowest value for coronary surgery. The observed and expected mortality was 4.3% and 3.0%, respectively (p = 0.034). The decision curve analysis showed a positive net benefit for all thresholds below 0.24, considering all type of surgeries. Conclusion: The EuroSCORE II showed an adequate performance in terms of discrimination and calibration for all types of surgery, although somewhat inferior for coronary surgery. Though in general terms this model underestimated the risk in intermediate risk groups, its overall performance was acceptable. The EuroSCORE II could be considered an optional updated generic model of operative risk stratification to predict in-hospital mortality after cardiac surgery in our context.

Validation of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation-II model in an urban Indian population and comparison with three other risk scoring systems.

Aims and Objectives: The aims were to compare the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE)‑II system against three established risk scoring systems for predictive accuracy in an urban Indian population and suggest improvements or amendments in the existing scoring system for adaptation in Indian population. Materials and Methods: EuroSCORE‑II, Parsonnet score, System‑97 score, and Cleveland score were obtained preoperatively for 1098 consecutive patients. EuroSCORE‑II system was analyzed in comparison to each of the above three scoring systems in an urban Indian population. Calibrations of scoring systems were assessed using Hosmer–Lemeshow test. Areas under receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were compared according to the statistical approach suggested by Hanley and McNeil. Results: All EuroSCORE‑II subgroups had highly significant P values stating good predictive mortality, except high‑risk group (P = 0.175). The analysis of ROC curves of different scoring systems showed that the highest predictive value for mortality was calculated for the System‑97 score followed by the Cleveland score. System‑97 revealed extremely high predictive accuracies across all subgroups (curve area >80%). This difference in predictive accuracy was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The present study suggests that the EuroSCORE‑II model in its present form is not validated for use in the Indian population. An interesting observation was significantly accurate predictive abilities of the System‑97 score

The application of European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk-score for risk stratification in Indian patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Aims and Objectives: To validate European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk-score for predicting mortality and STS risk-score for predicting morbidity in Indian patients after cardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: EuroSCORE II and STS risk-scores were obtained pre-operatively for 498 consecutive patients. The patients were followed for mortality and various morbidities. The calibration of the scoring systems was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discriminative capacity was estimated by area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: The mortality was 1.6%. For EuroSCORE II and STS risk-score C-statics of 5.43 and 6.11 were obtained indicating satisfactory model fit for both the scores. Area under ROC was 0.69 and 0.65 for EuroSCORE II and STS risk-score with P values of 0.068 and 0.15, respectively, indicating poor discriminatory power. Good fit and discrimination was obtained for renal failure, long-stay in hospital, prolonged ventilator support and deep sternal wound infection but the scores failed in predicting risk of reoperation and stroke. Mortality risk was correctly estimated in low (< 2%) and moderate (2-5%) risk patients, but over-estimated in high-risk (> 5%) patients by both scoring systems. Conclusions: EuroSCORE II and STS risk-scores have satisfactory calibration power in Indian patients but their discriminatory power is poor. Mortality risk was over-estimated by both the scoring systems in high-risk patients. The present study highlights the need for forming a national database and formulating risk stratification tools to provide better quality care to cardiac surgical patients in India.