Risk stratification in heart surgery: comparison of six score systems

Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Écart entre enseignants

0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail

Statut de validation

score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Résumé

OBJECTIVE: Risk scores have become an important tool in patient assessment, as age, severity of heart disease, and comorbidity in patients undergoing heart surgery have considerably increased. Various risk scores have been developed to predict mortality after heart surgery. However, there are significant differences between scores with regard to score design and the initial patient population on which score development was based. It was the purpose of our study to compare six commonly used risk scores with regard to their validity in our patient population. METHODS: Between September 1, 1998 and February 28, 1999, all adult patients undergoing heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in our institution were preoperatively scored using the initial Parsonnet, Cleveland Clinic, French, Euro, Pons, and Ontario Province Risk (OPR) scores. Postoperatively, we registered 30-day mortality, use of mechanical assist devices, renal failure requiring hemodialysis or hemofiltration, stroke, myocardial infarction, and duration of ventilation and intensive care stay. Score validity was assessed by calculating the area under the ROC curve. Odds ratios were calculated to investigate the predictive relevance of risk factors. RESULTS: Follow-up was able to be completed in 504 prospectively scored patients. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis for mortality showed the best predictive value for the Euro score. Predictive values for morbidity were considerably lower than predictive values for mortality in all of the investigated score systems. For most risk factors, odds ratios for mortality were substantially different from ratios for morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Among the investigated scores, the Euro score yielded the highest predictive value in our patient population. For most risk factors, predictive values for morbidity were substantially different from predictive values for mortality. Therefore, development of specific morbidity risk scores may improve prediction of outcome and hospital cost. Due to the heterogeneity of morbidity events, future score systems may have to generate separate predictions for mortality and major morbidity events.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

La notice

Revue

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Thématique

Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Domaine

Medicine

Établissements canadiens

—

Organismes subventionnaires

—

Mots-clés

MedicineReceiver operating characteristicPopulationComorbidityFramingham Risk ScoreOdds ratioStroke (engine)Cardiac surgeryHeart failureMyocardial infarctionRisk of mortalityInternal medicineHemodialysisDisease

Résumé présent dans OpenAlex

oui

API

/api/v1/works/W2044848461