ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Infective endocarditis risk scores: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of predictive scores for in-hospital mortality in surgical infective endocarditis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Patients with multivalvular infective endocarditis demonstrate adverse cardiac remodeling before surgery with increased postoperative mortality risk.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Enhanced Risk Stratification in Infective Endocarditis Surgery: A Comprehensive External Validation of All Available Mortality Prediction Scores.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Age-Creatinine-Ejection Fraction Score in Infective Endocarditis: Integrated Clinical and Echocardiographic Score for Surgically and Medically Treated Patients.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Despite modern advancements, infective endocarditis remains a devastating disease with high mortality and morbidity rates. Given the heterogeneous patient background and the complexity of the condition, the decision for surgery is difficult. Traditional general cardiac surgery risk models, including EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, do not include disease-specific factors that often impact both the operability and frailty of patients. The aim of the study is to review the strength and limitations of current risk scores designed specifically for patients with infective endocarditis. Methods: A search in PubMed and OVID databases was conducted for articles and abstracts published from inception to 1 Key Content and Findings: Various risk scores have therefore been developed to help stratify the operative risks of these patients by incorporating endocarditis-specific features. This review aims to analyse the applicability and usefulness of risk scores in the setting of surgical management of infective endocarditis, which in turn helps to identify patients who would benefit from interventions. From 2007, a total of 18 risk scores have been designed specifically for patients with infective endocarditis. These scores however have low generalisability since different patient characteristics, disease factors and validation strategies are used. In various validation cohorts and comparative studies, the discrimination performances of these scores are unsatisfactory. Most of the studies focused on early, or in-patient mortality, while the intermediate and long-term mortality was not well studied. Conclusions: Risk stratification for the group of patients who are indicated for surgery, but only received medical treatment due to perceived futility or were too unstable to proceed to operation, is pertinent. This population is not frequently recruited to current studies, and more research is needed.
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.