ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Performance of predictive scores for in-hospital mortality in surgical infective endocarditis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) carries high surgical mortality, particularly in Latin American populations where validated prediction models are scarce. Although EuroSCORE II, RISK-E, and APORTEI have shown acceptable performance in European cohorts, external validation in middle-income country settings remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery for IE at a high-complexity tertiary-care center in Bogotá, Colombia, between 2014 and 2025. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic and calibration was assessed via intercept, slope, Spiegelhalter's z-test, Brier score, mean absolute error (Eavg), and maximum absolute error (Emax). Results: Seventy patients were included (mean age 51.9 ± 14.8 years; 70% male); in-hospital mortality was 30% (21/70). RISK-E demonstrated the highest discrimination (C = 0.741, 95% CI 0.61-0.85), followed by EuroSCORE II (C = 0.718, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) and APORTEI (C = 0.676, 95% CI 0.53-0.80). All three scores systematically underestimated mortality risk, as evidenced by positive calibration intercepts (range 1.14-1.75). Calibration was closest to ideal for RISK-E (slope=0.962), while APORTEI showed the greatest deviation (slope=1.425). Spiegelhalter's z-test indicated significant miscalibration for all three models (all Conclusions: RISK-E showed numerically superior discrimination and a calibration slope closest to unity, although pairwise DeLong's tests showed no statistically significant difference between any two scores, and these findings should be interpreted in the context of the limited sample size (70 patients, 21 events). All three scores systematically underestimated in-hospital mortality, suggesting that recalibration or development of locally derived models is needed for reliable risk stratification in Latin American IE surgical programs.
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.