ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2022
Validation of existing risk scores for mortality prediction after a heart transplant in a Chinese population.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of institutional variables on centre performance in long-term survival after heart transplant.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Statistics in the Operating Room: A Cardiovascular Surgeon's Guide to Numbers That Matter.Cureus · 2024Article
- Postoperative high-sensitivity troponin T predicts 1-year mortality and days alive and out of hospital after orthotopic heart transplantation.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to validate 3 existing heart transplant risk scores with a single-centre cohort in China and evaluate the efficacy of the 3 systems in predicting mortality.
methodsWe retrospectively studied 428 patients from a single centre who underwent heart transplants from January 2015 to December 2019. All patients were scored using the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and risk stratification scores (RSSs). We assessed the efficacy of the risk scores by comparing the observed and the predicted 1-year mortality. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the 3 risk scores. Model discrimination was assessed by measuring the area under the receiver operating curves. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed after the patients were divided into different risk groups.
resultsBased on our cohort, the observed mortality was 6.54%, whereas the predicted mortality of the IMPACT and UNOS scores and the RSSs was 10.59%, 10.74% and 12.89%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that the IMPACT [odds ratio (OR), 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-1.36; P < 0.001], UNOS (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.37-2.07; P < 0.001) and risk stratification (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-2.00; P < 0.001) scores were predictive of 1-year mortality. The discriminative power was numerically higher for the IMPACT score [area under the curve (AUC) of 0.691)] than for the UNOS score (AUC 0.685) and the RSS (AUC 0.648).
conclusionsWe validated the IMPACT and UNOS scores and the RSSs as predictors of 1-year mortality after a heart transplant, but all 3 risk scores had unsatisfactory discriminative powers that overestimated the observed mortality for the Chinese cohort.
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.