Observational studyPloS one2021
Mortality risk prediction in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: Are traditional risk scores accurate?
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-blind, randomized study comparing clinical equivalence of trulene and prolene polypropylene sutures in elective primary coronary artery bypass graft surgery.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Trial
- Cardiac function and mortality of stem cell therapy in patients with coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass graft without heart failure: A meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
- Investigating outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery: a single-center retrospective study in Jordan.Future science OA · 2024Article
- More Hospital Complications in Women after Cabg Even for Reduced Surgical Times: Call to Action for Equity in Quality Improvement.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Insights from a multidisciplinary heart team for highest-risk valve disease.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe performance of traditional scores is significantly limited to predict mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of STS, ESII and HiriSCORE models in predicting mortality in high-risk patients undergoing CABG.
methodsCross-sectional analysis in the international prospective database of high-risk patients: HiriSCORE project. We evaluated 248 patients with STS or ESII (5-10%) undergoing CABG in 8 hospitals in Brazil and China. The main outcome was mortality, defined as all deaths occurred during the hospitalization in which the operation was performed, even after 30 days. Five variables were selected as predictors of mortality in this cohort of patients. The model's performance was evaluated through the calibration-in-the-large and the receiver operating curve (ROC) tests.
resultsThe mean age was 69.90±9.45, with 52.02% being female, 25% of the patients were on New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV and 49.6% had Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 4 angina, and 85.5% had urgency or emergency status. The mortality observed in the sample was 13.31%. The HiriSCORE model showed better calibration (15.0%) compared to ESII (6.6%) and the STS model (2.0%). In the ROC curve, the HiriSCORE model showed better accuracy (ROC = 0.74) than the traditional models STS (ROC = 0.67) and ESII (ROC = 0.50).
conclusionTraditional models were inadequate to predict mortality of high-risk patients undergoing CABG. However, the HiriSCORE model was simple and accurate to predict mortality in high-risk patients.
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.