Comparison of standard Euroscore, logistic Euroscore and Euroscore II in prediction of early mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting

Akgül, Ahmet; Gürsoy, Mete; Bakuy, Vedat; Polat, Ebru Bal; Kömürcü, İbrahim Gürkan; Kavala, Ali Aycan; Türkyilmaz, Saygın; Caglar, Ilker Murat; Tekdöş, Yasemin; Atay, Mehmet; Altun, Şenel; Gulmaliyev, Cabir; Memmedov, Seymur

doi:10.5152/akd.2013.136

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mortality rate in our study was at the level of 5.21% and it did not differ with the background of other similar studies, in which this value ranged from 2.2% to 5.66% [8][9][10][11][12][13]. For our CABG patients, this value was 5.33%.…”

Section: Discriminatory Powersupporting

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EuroSCORE II does not show better accuracy nor predictive power in comparison to original EuroSCORE: a single-centre study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c tBackground: EuroSCORE is used to predict postoperative mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Its updated version was published in 2011. Aim:To assess whether EuroSCORE II (ESII) predicts more accurately postoperative mortality after cardiac surgery in comparison with additive (addES) and logistic EuroSCORE (logES). Methods:A total of 461 patients (aged 21-88 years, 63.4% of men) who underwent cardiac surgery (December 2010 -June 2011) were included into the prospective research. For each patient ESII, addES and logES were calculated. Accuracy, calibration, and clinical performance of these models were assessed with receiver operating characteristics analyses using the area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Out of this population, a group of 300 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients (aged 42-85 years, 73% of men) was selected and statistically analysed using the same methods. Results:The mortality rate was 5.21%. Predicted mortality rates were as follows: addES 4.68%, logES 4.57%, and ESII 1.89%; the accuracy was: 0.589, 0.728, and 0.726, respectively. Only logES presented good predictive power (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: c 2 = 12.79, p = 0.12). In the CABG patients, the postoperative mortality rate was 5.33%. Predicted mortality rates were as follows: addES 4.69%, logES 4.59%, and ESII 1.88%; the accuracy was: 0.512, 0.691, and 0.687, respectively. In the Hosmer-Lemeshow test also logES presented good predictive power (c 2 = 10.72, p = 0.218). Conclusions:EuroSCORE II did not estimate mortality risk better in comparison to its previous versions, in the entire studied population or in the CABG patients. On the basis of the analysed data, it seems that the closest to the actual risk of death for the Polish population is the EuroSCORE logistic model. [1] is used to predict operative mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The scoring system was prepared using the most reliable and objective risk factors out of 97 risk factors collected from nearly 20,000 patients from 128 hospitals in eight European countries. All of the selected risk factors were divided into three groups: patient-related, cardiac-related, and operative-related factors. If

show abstract

Section: Discriminatory Powersupporting

confidence: 55%

“…The differences between AUC of addES and the AUC of ESII in both examined groups were statistically significant (Table 4). In contrast to this data, the addES remained good in three studies performed by Kunt et al [9], Toumpoulis et al [17], and in a CABG cohort from Akgül et al [11]: AUC: 0.70 and 0.72, 0.992, respectively.…”

Section: Discriminatory Powermentioning

confidence: 52%

EuroSCORE II does not show better accuracy nor predictive power in comparison to original EuroSCORE: a single-centre study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also Akgul et al . reported a good C-statistic value of EuroSCORE II compared to the original EuroSCORE (0.992 [95% CI: 0.977-0.998] for logistic EuroSCORE and 0.990 [95% CI: 0.975-0.997] for EuroSCORE II) and in the subgroup of high risk (additive EuroSCORE > 6) they found that again EuroSCORE II was better (0.857 [95% CI: 0.691-0.954] for logistic EuroSCORE and 0.961 [95% CI: 0.829-0.998] for EuroSCORE II) [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CARDIAC SURGERY Validation of EuroSCORE II risk model for coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients

Kalender

Adademir²,

Taşar³

et al. 2014

kitp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDetermining operative mortality risk is mandatory for adult cardiac surgery. Patients should be informed about the operative risk before surgery. There are some risk scoring systems that compare and standardize the results of the operations. These scoring systems needed to be updated recently, which resulted in the development of EuroSCORE II. In this study, we aimed to validate EuroSCORE II by comparing it with the original EuroSCORE risk scoring system in a group of high-risk octogenarian patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Material and methodsThe present study included only high-risk octogenarian patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in our center between January 2000 and January 2010. Redo procedures and concomitant procedures were excluded. We compared observed mortality with expected mortality predicted by EuroSCORE (logistic) and EuroSCORE II scoring systems.ResultsWe considered 105 CABG operations performed in octogenarian patients between January 2000 and January 2010. The mean age of the patients was 81.43 ± 2.21 years (80-89 years). Thirty-nine (37.1%) of them were female. The two scales showed good discriminative capacity in the global patient sample, with the AUC (area under the curve) being higher for EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.772, 95% CI: 0.673-0.872). The goodness of fit was good for both scales.ConclusionsWe conclude that EuroSCORE II has better AUC (area under the ROC curve) compared to the original EuroSCORE, but both scales showed good discriminative capacity and goodness of fit in octogenarian patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

show abstract

Prospective validation of EuroSCORE II in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Argentinean centres

Borracci¹,

Rubio²,

Celano³

et al. 2014

Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EuroSCORE II reflects a better current surgical performance and offers a new quality standard to evaluate local outcomes. EuroSCORE showed an overall good discriminative capacity and calibration in this local population; nevertheless, the model performed optimally in non-CABG surgery and in highest-risk patients, underestimating in-hospital mortality in lowest-risk cases. The latter finding may be interpreted as an inadequate behaviour of the model, as a poor performance of surgeons or both. Larger prospective studies will elucidate this hypothesis.

show abstract

Comparison of standard Euroscore, logistic Euroscore and Euroscore II in prediction of early mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

EuroSCORE II does not show better accuracy nor predictive power in comparison to original EuroSCORE: a single-centre study

EuroSCORE II does not show better accuracy nor predictive power in comparison to original EuroSCORE: a single-centre study

CARDIAC SURGERY Validation of EuroSCORE II risk model for coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients

Prospective validation of EuroSCORE II in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Argentinean centres

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About