Vol. 46 | No. 1 | January-June 2018 Back

Open Access

Comparison of the EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler Scoring Systems in Predicting In-hospital Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Heart Valve Surgery

Andre S. Awaloei, Edgar Y. Ongjoco, Aquileo C. Rico
Jun 2018 DOI 10.69944/pjc.68e36f92d6

Abstract

Background: Risk models are helpful in planning perioperative care in patients undergoing heart valve surgery. In the absence of a local risk model, the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II), Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk score and Ambler scores are frequently used in our institution to predict in-hospital mortality after heart valve surgery.

Objective:To compare the accuracy of the EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scoring systems in predicting in-hospital mortality among patients who underwent heart valve surgery.

Methods: From January 2008 to December 2015, the data of 162 patients who underwent heart valve surgery were collected through medical record review. EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scores were calculated for each patient. Calibration of these scores were assessed by the Hosmer–Lemeshow test and discrimination was tested by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results: The overall observed mortality was 6.17%. The EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scores underestimated in-hospital mortality (4.13%, 3.47%, and 4.12%, respectively; p<0.05 for all) but had good discriminative power (ROC area 0.82, 0.88 and 0.77, respectively) in patients who underwent single heart valve surgery. In the subgroup analysis of those who underwent isolated mitral valve surgery, the EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scores underestimated in-hospital mortality but had good discriminative power. In the subgroup analysis of patients who underwent aortic valve surgery, the EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scores showed good calibration in predicting in-hospital mortality, but only the STS score showed excellent discrimination. For dual valve surgery (observed mortality 4.0%), the EuroSCORE II and Ambler score showed good calibration (2.58% and 2.6%, p>0.05 for both) and discrimination (ROC area 0.83 and 0.85, respectively) in predicting in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective study, the EuroSCORE II, STS and Ambler scores underestimated overall in-hospital mortality after heart valve surgery. All three scores had good discriminative power; however, the STS score showed better performance compared to the EuroSCORE II and Ambler score in identifying high surgical risk individuals who underwent heart valve surgery.

References
  1. Ambler G, Omar RZ, Royston P, Kinsman R, Keogh BE, Taylor KM. Generic, simple risk stratification model for heart valve surgery. Circulation 2005;112:224– 31.
  2. Shahian DM, O’Brien SM, Filardo G, Ferraris VA, Haan CK, Rich JB, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models. Part 3—Valve plus coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88: S43–62.
  3. Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, Nilsso J, Smith C, Goldstone AR and Lockowandt U. EuroSCORE II. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2012; 41 :734–745.
  4. Wang C,Li X,Lu FL, Xu JB, Tang H, Han L, Xu ZY. Comparison of Six Risk Scores for In-hospital Mortality in Chinese Patients Undergoing Heart Valve Surgery .Heart, Lung and Circulation 2013;22:612–617.
  5. Geissler HJ, Holzl P, Marohl S, Kuhn-Regnier F, Mehlhorn U, Sudkamp M, de Vivie ER. Risk stratification in heart surgery: comparison of six score systems. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;17:400–406.
  6. Nilsson J, Algotsson L, Glund PH, Luhrs C, Brandt J. Comparison of 19 pre- operative risk stratification models in open-heart surgery. European Heart Journal 2006; 27: 867–874.
  7. Rosenhek R, Lung B, Tornos P, et al. ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease Position Paper: assessing the risk of interventions in patients with valvular heart disease 2011. Eur Heart J. 2012 Apr;33(7):822-8, 828a, 828b.
  8. Edwards FH, Peterson ED, Coombs LP, et al. Prediction of Operative Mortality After Valve Replacement Surgery. Journal of the Aerican College of Cardiology 2001;37:885–92.
  9. Nishimura RA Otto CM Bonow RO Carabello BA Erwin JPIII Guyton RA O’Gara PT Ruiz CE Skubas NJ Sorajja P Sundt TMIII Thomas JD. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2014;129:e521– e643.
  10. Wang C, Tang Y, Zhang J, MD, Bai Y, Yu Y. Comparison of four risk scores for in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing heart valve surgery: A multicenter study in a Chinese population. Heart & Lung Journal. 2016;45:423-428.
  11. Kirmani BH, Mazhar K, Fabri BM, Pullan DM. Comparison of the EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 risk tools. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;44(6):999-1005.
  12. Leavitt BJ, et al. Outcomes of patients undergoing concomitant aortic and mitral valve surgery in northern new England. Circulation. 2009;120:S155–S162.
  13. McGonigle N, Jones JM, Sidhu P, Macgowan S. Concomitant mitral valve surgery with aortic valve replacement: a 21-year experience with a single mechanical prosthesis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;2:24.
  14. Akhtar RP, Abid AR, Naqshband MS, et al Outcome of double vs. single valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease. J Coll Physicians Surgeons Pakistan 2011;21(1): 9-14.
License

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.