ArticleHeart international
Heart valve surgery: EuroSCORE vs. EuroSCORE II vs. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score.
Article in Heart international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality risk prediction models in adult cardiac surgery.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Short- and Long-Term Survival Prediction Using Different Prognostic Scores in Cardiovascular Surgeries.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of the EuroSCORE II and the STS score for cardiac surgery in octogenarians.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2021Article
- Aortic Valve Sclerosis Adds to Prediction of Short-Term Mortality in Patients with Documented Coronary Atherosclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Thromboembolic and Bleeding Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insights on Mechanisms, Prophylaxis and Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis is a validation study comparing the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II with the previous additive (AES) and logistic EuroSCORE (LES) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' (STS) risk prediction algorithm, for patients undergoing valve replacement with or without bypass in Pakistan. PATIENTS AND
methodsClinical data of 576 patients undergoing valve replacement surgery between 2006 and 2013 were retrospectively collected and individual expected risks of death were calculated by all four risk prediction algorithms. Performance of these risk algorithms was evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration.
resultsThere were 28 deaths (4.8%) among 576 patients, which was lower than the predicted mortality of 5.16%, 6.96% and 4.94% by AES, LES and EuroSCORE II but was higher than 2.13% predicted by STS scoring system. For single and double valve replacement procedures, EuroSCORE II was the best predictor of mortality with highest Hosmer and Lemmeshow test (H-L) p value (0.346 to 0.689) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (0.637 to 0.898). For valve plus concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients actual mortality was 1.88%. STS calculator came out to be the best predictor of mortality for this subgroup with H-L p value (0.480 to 0.884) and ROC (0.657 to 0.775).
conclusionsFor Pakistani population EuroSCORE II is an accurate predictor for individual operative risk in patients undergoing isolated valve surgery, whereas STS performs better in the valve plus CABG group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.