ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia
Analysis of Risk Scores to Predict Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery for Endocarditis.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infective endocarditis: Do we have an effective risk score model? A systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Infective Endocarditis: Still More Challenges Than Convictions.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Predictors of mortality and adverse events in patients with infective endocarditis: a retrospective real world study in a surgical centre.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Prognostic Scores for Mortality in Cardiac Surgery for Infective Endocarditis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk scores are available for use in daily clinical practice, but knowing which one to choose is still fraught with uncertainty.
objectivesTo assess the logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and the infective endocarditis (IE)-specific scores STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE and RISK-E, as predictors of hospital mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for active IE at a tertiary teaching hospital in Southern Brazil.
methodsRetrospective cohort study including all patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent cardiac surgery for active IE at the study facility from 2007-2016. The scores were assessed by calibration evaluation (observed/expected [O/E] mortality ratio) and discrimination (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). Comparison of AUC was performed by the DeLong test. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 107 patients were included. Overall hospital mortality was 29.0% (95%CI: 20.4-37.6%). The best O/E mortality ratio was achieved by the PALSUSE score (1.01, 95%CI: 0.70-1.42), followed by the logistic EuroSCORE (1.3, 95%CI: 0.92-1.87). The logistic EuroSCORE had the highest discriminatory power (AUC 0.77), which was significantly superior to EuroSCORE II (p = 0.03), STS-IE (p = 0.03), PALSUSE (p = 0.03), AEPEI (p = 0.03), and RISK-E (p = 0.02).
conclusionsDespite the availability of recent IE-specific scores, and considering the trade-off between the indexes, the logistic EuroSCORE seemed to be the best predictor of mortality risk in our cohort, taking calibration (O/E mortality ratio: 1.3) and discrimination (AUC 0.77) into account. Local validation of IE-specific scores is needed to better assess preoperative surgical risk. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524).
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.