Key result
A locally developed risk model predicted hospital morbidity after coronary surgery with an AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.84) during validation, whereas traditional scores lacked discrimination.
Cohort (n=472)
No
A locally developed risk model using age, prior revascularization, and creatinine may predict hospital morbidity better than traditional STS and Euroscore in specific coronary surgery populations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Local models may outperform traditional scores for coronary surgery morbidity; leaves open external validation before wider use.
Introduction: Risk scores evaluate pre-operatory risk and present support for clinical decisions, however the performance of these tools in samples different from the original ones remains unclear. Objectives: Investigate the external validity of risk scores (STS and Euroscore) in cardiac surgery and the predictive performance of clinical features derived from the sample. Methods: Retrospective Cohort study conducted between October, 2010, and April, 2015. We used logistic regression to identify risk factors for hospital morbidity. The sample was divided for cross-validation, with 2/3 of the patients selected for model fitting and 1/3 for prediction testing. The performance of risk scores and clinical features was evaluated through AUROC and calibraton the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (H-L). Results: Data was retrieved from 472 patients who underwent coronary cardiac surgery in Hospital Santa Izabel da Santa Casa, BA. Mean age was 62.8 years old and 32.5% of the sample were women. Traditional surgical risk scores did not present significant discriminative performance for this sample. Factors associated with the outcome after adjusting for covariates were: age, previous myocardial revascularization and pre-surgical creatinine levels. The adjusted model presented similar discrimination and calibration values during training (AUROC = 0,72; IC 95% 0,59-0,84; H-L valor p: 0,41) and validation (AUROC = 0,70; IC 95% 0,55 - 0,84; H-L valor p: 0,197). Conclusion: Traditional scores may be inaccurate when applied to different environments. New risk scores with good predictive power can be developed using local clinical variables.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Viana et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in coronary cardiac surgery (n=472). Local clinical variables model vs. Traditional surgical risk scores (STS and Euroscore) was evaluated on hospital morbidity (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.84). A locally developed risk model predicted hospital morbidity after coronary surgery with an AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.84) during validation, whereas traditional scores lacked discrimination.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: