Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Nov 15;118(10):1574-1582. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.024. Epub 2016 Aug 23.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Established Risk Prediction Models (EuroSCORE II, STS Score, and ACEF Score) for Perioperative Mortality During Cardiac Surgery.

Author information

1
Department of Health Research and Policy, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
2
Department of Health Research and Policy, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Departments of Medicine and Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: jioannid@stanford.edu.

Abstract

A wide variety of multivariable risk models have been developed to predict mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery; however, the relative utility of these models is unknown. This study investigated the literature related to comparisons made between established risk prediction models for perioperative mortality used in the setting of cardiac surgery. A systematic review was conducted to capture studies in cardiac surgery comparing the relative performance of at least 2 prediction models cited in recent guidelines (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE II], Society for Thoracic Surgeons 2008 Cardiac Surgery Risk Models [STS] score, and Age, Creatinine, Ejection Fraction [ACEF] score) for the outcomes of 1-month or inhospital mortality. For articles that met inclusion criteria, we extracted information on study design, predictive performance of risk models, and potential for bias. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate a summary estimate of the difference in AUCs between models. We identified 22 eligible studies that contained 33 comparisons among the above models. Meta-analysis of differences in AUCs revealed that the EuroSCORE II and STS score performed similarly (with a summary difference in AUCĀ = 0.00), while outperforming the ACEF score (with summary differences in AUC of 0.10 and 0.08, respectively, p <0.05). Other metrics of discrimination and calibration were presented less consistently, and no study presented any metric of reclassification. Small sample size and absent descriptions of missing data were common in these studies. In conclusion, the EuroSCORE II and STS score outperform the ACEF score on discrimination.

PMID:
27687052
DOI:
10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.024
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center