Key result
EuroSCORE II demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.85) but was poorly calibrated (P=0.0003) compared to the local InsCor model.
Why the study?
Does EuroSCORE II accurately predict in-hospital mortality compared to EuroSCORE and a local model (InsCor) in patients undergoing CABG or valve surgery?
Observational (n=1,000)
No
Does EuroSCORE II accurately predict in-hospital mortality compared to EuroSCORE and a local model (InsCor) in patients undergoing CABG or valve surgery?
EuroSCORE II was poorly calibrated for predicting in-hospital mortality in this local cohort, highlighting the importance of locally developed risk models like InsCor.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution advised applying EuroSCORE II without local adjustment in Brazilian cohorts; supports validation of institution-specific models like InsCor.
INTRODUCTION: The most widely used model for predicting mortality in cardiac surgery was recently remodeled, but the doubts regarding its methodology and development have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the EuroSCORE II to predict mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafts or valve surgery at our institution. METHODS: One thousand consecutive patients operated on coronary artery bypass grafts or valve surgery, between October 2008 and July 2009, were analyzed. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Calibration was performed by correlation between observed and expected mortality by Hosmer Lemeshow. Discrimination was calculated by the area under the ROC curve. The performance of the EuroSCORE II was compared with the EuroSCORE and InsCor (local model). RESULTS: In calibration, the Hosmer Lemeshow test was inappropriate for the EuroSCORE II (P=0.0003) and good for the EuroSCORE (P=0.593) and InsCor (P=0.184). However, the discrimination, the area under the ROC curve for EuroSCORE II was 0.81 [95% CI (0.76 to 0.85), P<0.001], for the EuroSCORE was 0.81 [95% CI (0.77 to 0.86), P<0.001] and for InsCor was 0.79 [95% CI (0.74-0.83), P<0.001] showing up properly for all. CONCLUSION: The EuroSCORE II became more complex and resemblance to the international literature poorly calibrated to predict mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafts or valve surgery at our institution. These data emphasize the importance of the local model.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lisboa et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Coronary artery bypass grafts or valve surgery (n=1,000). EuroSCORE II vs. EuroSCORE and InsCor was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (AUC 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.85, p=<0.001). EuroSCORE II demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.85) but was poorly calibrated (P=0.0003) compared to the local InsCor model.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: