ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Enhanced Risk Stratification in Infective Endocarditis Surgery: A Comprehensive External Validation of All Available Mortality Prediction Scores.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In-Hospital Mortality Predictors and a Bayesian Weighted-Incidence Antibiogram in Infective Endocarditis: A Seven-Year Cohort Study from a Mexican Tertiary University Hospital.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several prognostic models have been developed to estimate operative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis (IE). However, their external validity and performance remain uncertain, limiting clinical applicability. This study aimed to externally validate and compare the performance of contemporary IE-specific and generic cardiac surgery (EuroSCORE II) risk scores in a large single-center cohort. Methods: Eighteen operative IE-specific risk scores, along with EuroSCORE II, were retrospectively applied to a database of 689 patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), while calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, Brier score, and calibration slopes/intercepts. For each score, the type of validation reported in the original study was critically examined, noting that validation was not always performed. Additionally, the inclusion of IE-specific variables, such as pathogen type and valvular complications, was assessed to evaluate the reliability and clinical applicability of each score. Results: Among the 689 patients, 30% were female, with a median age of 69 years. The most frequent pathogens were Streptococcus (26%), Staphylococcus aureus (18%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (18%), and Enterococcus faecalis (16%). Operative mortality was 10.6% (n = 73). The RISK-E score showed the highest discrimination (AUC: 0.742), followed by APORTEI (0.734) and modified MELD-XI (0.730). All scores demonstrated good calibration, with scaled Brier scores above 0.8. Scores incorporating IE-specific variables generally performed better, while several widely used generic scores, including EuroSCORE II, overestimated operative risk. External validation revealed lower AUCs for many scores compared to original reports, highlighting the importance of rigorous evaluation. Conclusion: The RISK-E score demonstrated the highest discriminative ability and satisfactory calibration for predicting operative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis. These results support the role of externally validated, IE-specific prognostic tools in guiding clinical assessment and selecting appropriate perioperative strategies.
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.