Key result
The logistic EuroSCORE showed the highest discrimination for hospital mortality (AUC 0.84) but overestimated risk, whereas the CARE score (AUC 0.79) remained well-calibrated without recalibration.
Why the study?
Does the CARE score provide better risk-adjusted mortality prediction compared to the EuroSCORE in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Observational (n=3,818)
No
Does the CARE score provide better risk-adjusted mortality prediction compared to the EuroSCORE in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
The CARE score remains well-calibrated for predicting hospital mortality after cardiac surgery, whereas the original EuroSCORE models significantly overestimate risk and require recalibration.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports CARE score calibration for mortality prediction in cardiac surgery; leaves open need for prospective validation before replacing EuroSCORE.
OBJECTIVE: The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and the Cardiac Anesthesia Risk Evaluation (CARE) score are risk indices designed in the mid-1990 s to predict mortality after cardiac surgery. This study assesses their ability to provide risk-adjusted mortality in a contemporary cardiac surgical population. METHODS: The mortality probability was estimated with the additive and logistic EuroSCORE, and CARE score, for 3818 patients undergoing cardiac surgery at one institution between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2009. Model discrimination was obtained using the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and calibration using the appropriate chi-square goodness-of-fit test. Recalibration of risk models was obtained by logistic calibration, when needed. Calculation of risk-adjusted mortality was performed for the institution and eight surgeons, using each model before and when needed, after recalibration. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve is 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.74) with the additive EuroSCORE, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.83-0.85) with the logistic EuroSCORE, and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78-0.81) with the CARE score. The additive and logistic EuroSCORE have poor calibration, predicting a hospital mortality of 6.24% and 7.72%, respectively, versus an observed mortality of 3.25% (P < 0.001). Consequently, the risk-adjusted mortality obtained with those models is significantly underestimated for the institution and all surgeons. The CARE score has good calibration, predicting a mortality of 3.38% (P = 0.50). The hospital risk-adjusted mortality with the recalibrated additive and logistic EuroSCORE and CARE score is 3.24% (95% CI: 3.05-3.43%), 3.25% (95% CI: 3.05-3.44%), and 3.12% (95% CI: 2.94-3.34%), respectively. The individual surgeons' risk-adjusted mortality is similar with the recalibrated EuroSCORE models and CARE score, identifying two surgeons with higher rates than the hospital average mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The original additive and logistic EuroSCORE models significantly overestimate the risk of mortality after cardiac surgery. However, after recalibration both models provide reliable risk-adjusted mortality results. Despite its lower discrimination as compared with the logistic EuroSCORE, the CARE score remains calibrated a decade after its development. It is as robust as the recalibrated additive and logistic EuroSCORE to perform risk-adjusted mortality analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tran et al. (2011) conducted an observational in cardiac surgery (n=3,818). EuroSCORE vs. CARE score was evaluated on hospital mortality. The logistic EuroSCORE showed the highest discrimination for hospital mortality (AUC 0.84) but overestimated risk, whereas the CARE score (AUC 0.79) remained well-calibrated without recalibration.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: