Abstract
The accuracy of contemporary risk scores in predicting perioperative mortality in infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial. The aim is to evaluate the performance of existent mortality risk scores for cardiovascular surgery in IE and the impact on operability at high-risk thresholds. A single-center retrospective review of adult patients diagnosed with acute left-sided IE undergoing surgery from May 2014 to August 2019 (n = 142) was done. Individualized risk calculation was obtained according to the available mortality risk scores: EuroScore I and II, PALSUSE, Risk-E, Costa, De Feo-Cotrufo, AEPEI, STS-risk, STS-IE, APORTEI, and ICE-PCS scores. A cross-validation analysis was performed on the score with the best area under the curve (AUC). The 30-day survival was 96.5% (95%CI 91–98%). The score with worse area under the curve (AUC = 0.6) was the STS-IE score, while the higher was for the RISK-E score (AUC = 0.89). The AUC of the majority of risk scores suggested acceptable performance; however, statistically significant differences in expected versus observed mortalities were common. The cross-validation analysis showed that a large number of survivors (> 75%) would not have been operated if arbitrary high-risk threshold estimates had been used to deny surgery. The observed mortality in our cohort is significantly lower than is predicted by contemporary risk scores. Despite the reasonable numeric performance of the analyzed scores, their utility in judging the operability of a given patient remains questionable, as demonstrated in the cross-validation analysis. Future guidelines may advise that denial of surgery should only follow a highly experienced Endocarditis Team evaluation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Despite diagnostic and therapeutic improvements, postoperative mortality for infective endocarditis (IE) remains high [1,2,3]. Cardiovascular surgery (CS) will be indicated in nearly half of IE patients [4, 5]. A timely operation to restore hemodynamic function, to eliminate embolic risk, and/or to control infection contributes to survival [6, 7]. Although indications for surgery might be clear from a structural or infective standpoint, in daily clinical practice the decision to offer CS is often challenging. Nearly a quarter of patients with surgical indication do not receive CS [1, 8]. This reality may be a consequence of perceived futility or denial of operative management on the basis of a high-risk score estimate.
The use of risk scores for endocarditis aims at an objective measurement of mortality risk inherent to the disease and may assist into benchmarking healthcare systems. Specific recommendations for clinical practice and individual decision-making based on available risk scores remain an aspect to be further developed in current ESC guidelines for IE [7]. Intending to predict mortality, multiple specific IE risk scores have been developed and adopted [5, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Some have also been shown to predict in-hospital mortality even in patients treated without CS [16]. One significant drawback of these scores is their performance in external cohorts [2, 17,18,19,20]. At an individual patient level, the indication for CS in the face of extreme operative risk and marginal chances of meaningful survival is controversial.
We aim to explore the performance of multiple operative mortality risk scores in our most contemporary surgical experience of active left-sided IE. In addition, we examine the outcomes at high-risk thresholds to explore the hypothetical loss of life if arbitrary cut-offs for operability had been used.
Materials and methods
Patients
All consecutive patients admitted to our institution from 1 May 2014 to 31 August 2019 with diagnosis of definite acute left-sided IE who underwent CS were reviewed. All patients with IE were discussed prospectively and the indications to pursue CS were agreed within the Hospital Clínic Endocarditis Team as stated in other works [21]. Patients’ baseline characteristics and intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data were collected from the departmental database, outpatient’s clinic visits, telephone interviews, and referring physicians’ notes.
Definitions
The diagnosis of definite IE was made according to the modified Duke criteria in all cases [22]. Results were reported following the Guidelines for Reporting Mortality and Morbidity After Cardiac Valve Interventions by Akins [23]. CS was considered urgent when it was performed within the first 7 days following hospital admission and emergent when performed in the first 24 h [7]. Definitions related to the IE pathology process and outcomes follow those already published by the International Collaboration on Endocarditis [14].
IE-CS mortality risk scores’ performance and QoL assessment
The estimated mortality risk was calculated at the time of surgery for each patient using the most employed scores in CS to predict mortality (STS-risk score and EuroScore I and II) [24,25,26,27]. Moreover, we calculated the predicted mortality risk using specific IE-CS risk scores, which include several items known to affect the patients’ outcome as prosthetic valve IE or the existence of a paravalvular complication. These risk scores included PALSUSE [5], Risk-E [11], Costa [9], De Feo-Cotrufo [10], AEPEI [13], the modified STS-IE [28], APORTEI [12], and ICE-PCS scores [14]. Composite morbimortality risk was also assessed by the STS-IE score [28]. Scores were calculated using the same definitions of variables as stated in their original article [5, 9,10,11,12,13,14, 24,25,26,27,28].
We performed a cross-validation study on the basis of different preoperative mortality risk thresholds. We used arbitrary cut-off points for mortality risk of 45%, 60%, and 70% for each score to assess the impact of operability at these incremental risks. We excluded those scores for which the number of patients with risk over 45% was less than 5 (STS, STS-IE). To better understand the risk prediction, we calculated the predictive positive value (PPV) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for EuroScore II, STS-risk, Risk-E, and ICE-PCS scores. We selected these scores due to their performance in our cohort and their general applicability in CS. PPVs were calculated at cut-off values indicating either the maximal sensitivity or specificity.
In addition to the perioperative outcomes, we also analyzed the characteristics of incremental subgroups of high-risk patients defined by the Risk-E score. With the use of the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), we evaluated different quality of life (QoL) parameters at latest follow-up for patients with higher estimates of mortality by the Risk-E score (> 45%). This particular score was selected as it was the one that performed better in our cohort.
Statistical analysis
Variables are expressed as the median and interquartile range [IQR], or as proportions, as appropriate. In-hospital mortality and survival rates were assessed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year. Discrimination of the risk scores was studied by performing the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for each risk score and its corresponding area under the curve (AUC). The selected thresholds for each score assessment using ROC curves were obtained maximizing the sum of sensibility and specificity. Calibration for each score was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The statistical analysis was performed using STATA statistical software version 14.1 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX).
Results
A total of 235 patients were evaluated at our institution with acute left-sided infective endocarditis. Data related to our patients who did not undergo CS has been published elsewhere [8]. A total of 142 patients (60%) underwent surgery and 2 patients (1.4%) were lost to follow-up.
Characteristics of the operated IE cases in the cohort (Table 1)
Male gender predominated (76.8%) and median age was 64 years (IQR 30–82). There were 95 cases of native valve IE (66.9%) and 47 cases of prosthetic IE (33.1%). Perivalvular abscess, fistulas, or perforation occurred in 100 cases (70.4%). Twenty cases (14.1%) suffered documented preoperative emboli in the central nervous system and 33 cases (26.2%) presented with cardiogenic shock.
The causative microorganism was identified in 97.9% of patients. The most prevalent causative agent were viridans group streptococci (VGS), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Staphylococcus aureus. These results show a tendency in higher number of CoNS and a lower frequency of S. aureus as causative microorganisms, which are in line with the most recent literature [29, 30].
Postoperative outcomes
In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 5.6% (eight patients). The mortality reasons and deceased patients’ profile are reported in Supplementary Table 1. Six-months and 1-year survivals were 93.7% and 90.8%, respectively. No relapses of the index infection were observed at follow-up. Median follow-up was 33.1 months (IQR 18.6–49.9).
Risk score data and performance in our cohort of patients
The mean, range, standard deviation, and CI for each risk score model are summarized in Table 2. The ROC curve and its AUC for the risk scores are shown in Fig. 1. The majority of IE scores showed a high estimated risk of mortality in our cohort, between 15 and 30%. The risk scores with lower estimated mortality were STS (5.74–10.18%) and De Feo-Cotrufo score (9.2–27.3%). Meanwhile, the risk scores with higher predicted mortality were EuroScore I, Costa, and APORTEI. The risk score with the best performance was Risk-E (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI 0.823–0.970) and the one with worst performance was the STS-IE risk score (AUC = 0.61, 95% CI 0.370–0.846). When tested in our cohort, all scores appeared to show adequate calibration (Supplementary Table 2). The number of operated patients whose risk exceeded arbitrary cut-off points for every score is summarized in Table 3. Survival for the highest cut-off values remains ≥ 79%. Similarly, the PPV and the 95% CI of the scores studied are shown in Table 4. As the risk score increased, the PPV also increased, indicating better discrimination. However, the PPVs calculated were all consistently low between scores.
Profile, 1-year survival, and QoL of high-risk patients according to the Risk-E score
We found increasing proportions of S. aureus etiology, cardiogenic shock, thrombocytopenia, and acute renal failure as the predicted risk raised. Patient’s characteristics for each group at incremental risks are detailed in Supplementary Table 3. In-hospital mortality slightly increased as the risk rose but remained low compared to estimated mortality. In the highest risk group (> 70%), only one patient died in the first year after surgery. Further analysis of QoL subcomponents for patients with Risk-E > 45 is shown in Supplementary Table 4. Follow-up data was obtained at a median of 37.0 months after surgery [IQR = 19.0–52.7]). On a global evaluation, this subgroup of patients performed slightly lower than the general population in the physical subcomponent evaluation and similarly in the mental subcomponent [31].
Discussion
We externally assessed the discriminative power of the currently available IE risk scores in a center with an Endocarditis Team active for more than 30 years. From a statistical point of view, the general discrimination of most risk scores in our cohort appears appropriate. However, the difference between predicted and observed mortalities struck from a clinical and statistical standpoint. The Endocarditis Team through an experienced, collegiate, and multidisciplinary care may account for such outcomes. Prior data from the group of Botelho-Nevers et al. showed a significative reduction in 1-year mortality (18.5 to 8.2%, p = 0.008) after implementing a management-based approach through standardized diagnostic and therapeutic protocol on patients with diagnosis of IE [32]. Therefore, we hypothesize that the presence of an IE Team as well as undergoing timely cardiac surgery might be used as a correction factor for predicting mortality in further scoring systems.
We acknowledge that none of the available scores has influenced our IE practice. Conceptually, the ability to count on a perfect score when complex IE decision-making is required would prevent denial of surgery to a viable patient and limit unnecessary escalation. In our experience, mortality after surgery for endocarditis arises from brain bleeding from preoperative embolism, severely depressed systolic function not amenable to transplantation/mechanical circulatory support, poor tissue-suture anchorage, and advanced patient directives. Important features impacting survival after cardiac surgery (e.g., non-reversible pulmonary hypertension, overestimated ventricular function with multiple valve regurgitation, calcified aorta, need for extended cardiac ischemic times, and coronary disease not amenable to revascularization) have been ignored from scoring systems [33,34,35].
Understanding how risk scores have been created provides clues on the current study findings. Most of the scores include patients with right- and left-sided IE (De Feo score, PALSUSE score) and different stages of the disease and merge patients with healed IE and patients undergoing medical treatment alone (De Feo score, PALSUSE score, AEPEI score, Costa score, ICE-PCS), or general cardiac patients (STS score, EuroScore I and II). Our cohort’s risk profile is higher than those that served to formulate the majority of scores and most of the surgically reported experiences [7, 36]. The reported mortality rates vary from 8.2% (STS-IE) [13] to 28.3% (RISK-E) [9], being De Feo-Cotrufo and STS-IE the only ones with mortality below 10% [10, 28]. Wang and colleagues [(18)] concluded that EuroScore I overestimated the risk in IE and failed to discriminate operative mortality. Varela et al. added that EuroScore II underestimated mortality in patients with low risk most likely as a result of not capturing important inherent features of IE patients [2]. Other studies showed similar results in which EuroScore II tended to underestimate mortality by 5–10% when predicted mortality was greater than 10% for IE patients [37]. A recent meta-model with weighted IE-specific variables from individual scores from Fernández-Félix et al. showed an increased discriminatory power compared to their previous existent scores [38].
The score proposed by De Feo-Cotrufo [10] is the only score included in current clinical guidelines [7]. It arises from patients operated over a 30-year period and is limited to native valve IE. Wang also demonstrated its applicability could be extended to prosthetic valve IE patients [18]. The Costa score [9] has been found to have poor performance in our cohort. We believe that the different patient’s characteristics of both cohorts (Brazilian population, mean age of 33.9 years; and patients in whom surgery was not performed) may be reasons for the observed results. The ICE-PCS score is the only one that predicts mortality at 6 months [14]. Similarly, to other scores, it merges patients undergoing surgery (48.1%) with patients treated only medically. For patients not undergoing surgery, this score has demonstrated reasonable prediction of mortality [16]. The PALSUSE [5], RISK-E [11], and APORTEI [12] scores have the best performance in our cohort. Similar preoperative characteristics and inclusion of IE-specific and critical preoperative variables may explain our findings.
Contemporary IE clinical guidelines state clearly the theoretical indications to pursue surgery [7]. However, it is acknowledged that in practice the final decision to offer surgery usually relies on the patients’ condition and risk profile. We previously reported our non-operated cohort and compared it with operated patients [8]. In our experience, the estimated risk profile of patients not undergoing surgery (despite contemporary guidelines indication) was significantly lower than of those operated (EuroScore II 9.4% vs 23.3%, p < 0.007). Over a similar time period, a total of 46 patients with acute left-sided IE with indications of surgery did not undergo surgery, which accounted for the 27% of patients with formal indication of surgery dictated by guidelines. We also reviewed the reasons for not pursuing surgery and those usually overlapped, but a high score was never a motivation itself. Thirty-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality were 63%, 85%, and 90%, respectively. Recent data suggest that the implementation of several risk scores, including EuroScore II, might be useful in predicting mortality even in not operated patients [39]. In our experience, EuroScore II seems to underestimate mortality in non-operated patients while overestimates morality in surgical patients. Importantly, the reasons for not undergoing surgery in this cohort of non-operated patients usually include cerebral brain bleeding, end-stage cancer, unwillingness to undergo surgery, and end-stage liver disease, among other reasons that are not usually captured by prediction scores.
If a high numeric risk score was to be used as a sole tool to deny surgery, we attested that preventable deaths might have occurred. The perfect score would be a tool with 100% specificity in death prediction so that surgery is not even undertaken. Anything below this capability will lead to questioning how much risk is reasonable to accept. Undeniably, at times, the borders of operability and futility remain arbitrary. As for any urgent cardiac intervention, the likelihood of survival and return to previous status relies on the extent of biological reserve and organ dysfunction acuity. We evaluated not only mortality but also QoL in this very high-risk subgroup to understand whether futile interventions were pursued. In those high-risk patients, data on survival beyond the acute phase along with follow-up QoL points at a beneficial and appropriate use of surgery.
Procedural reporting of mortality has been associated with surgical risk-averse behavior as it poses a challenge to the surgeon at an individual level. At a departmental and institutional level, public reporting of outcomes and benchmarking through inaccurate risk scores threaten the best interest of patients. A charitable decision erring on the side of the patient is the logical course of action regardless of high estimates of death, if eloquent recovery with surgery is possible. The need for improved scores remains to guide resource allocation and the referral of surgical candidates to the best-performing IE teams.
Limitations
The first is the single-center observational retrospective nature of the study, although the local Endocarditis Team prospectively evaluated all patients. Second, given that our institution acts as a referral center for endocarditis, the pattern of surgical candidates may be biased towards patients with different stages of the disease and more complex interventions that were at times denied elsewhere. However, it is possible that this occurred also to centers participating in the production of risk scores. The low number of adverse outcomes challenges the analysis of the different risk scores. Finally, the QoL assessment has occurred at variable time frames since CS was pursued. Thus, if QoL assessment is obtained years after the operation, unmodifiable natural events—such as aging itself or progressive organ dysfunction—not related to the CS-IE may have led to worse punctuation.
Conclusion
The observed mortality in our cohort is significantly lower than predicted by contemporary risk scores. Despite the reasonable numeric performance of the analyzed scores, their utility in judging the operability of a given patient remains questionable, as is demonstrated in the cross-validation analysis. On the sole basis of a high-risk value, many patients would be denied a lifesaving operation upholding the potential to restore QoL. Individual assessment of risk from a specialized team might improve outcomes in this complex subset of patients. Future IE guidelines may recommend that denial of surgery should only follow a highly experienced Endocarditis Team evaluation.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to potential individual privacy disruption but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information files.
References
Chu VH, Park LP, Athan E et al (2015) Association between surgical indications, operative risk, and clinical outcome in infective endocarditis: a prospective study from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis. Circulation 131:131–140
Varela L, López-Menéndez J, Redondo A et al (2018) Mortality risk prediction in infective endocarditis surgery: reliability analysis of specific scores. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 53:1049–1054
Muñoz P, Kestler M, De Alarcon A et al (2015) Current epidemiology and outcome of infective endocarditis: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Medicine 94:e1816
Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B et al (2009) Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med 169:463–473
Martínez-Sellés M, Muñoz P, Arnáiz A et al (2014) Valve surgery in active infective endocarditis: a simple score to predict in-hospital prognosis. Int J Cardiol 175:133–137
Anantha Narayanan M, Mahfood Haddad T, Kalil AC et al (2016) Early versus late surgical intervention or medical management for infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 102:950–957
Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ et al (2015) ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 36:3075–3128
Carino D, Fernández-Cisneros A, Hernández-Meneses M et al (2020) The fate of active left-side infective endocarditis with operative indication in absence of valve surgery. J Card Surg 35:3034–3040
Costa MA, Wollmann DR Jr, Campos AC et al (2007) Risk index for death by infective endocarditis: a multivariate logistic model. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 22:192–200
De Feo M, Cotrufo M, Carozza A et al (2012) The need for a specific risk prediction system in native valve infective endocarditis surgery. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:307571
Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Habib G et al (2017) Risk score for cardiac surgery in active left-sided infective endocarditis. Heart 103:1435–1442
Varela L, Fernández-Felix BM, Navas Elorza E et al (2020) Prognostic assessment of valvular surgery in active infective endocarditis: multicentric nationwide validation of a new score developed from a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 57:724–731
Gatti G, Perrotti A, Obadia JF et al (2017) Simple scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality after surgery for infective endocarditis. J Am Heart Assoc 6:e004806
Park LP, Chu VH, Peterson G et al (2016) Validated risk score for predicting 6-month mortality in infective endocarditis. J Am Heart Assoc 5:e003016
Di Mauro M, Dato GMA, Barili F et al (2017) A predictive model for early mortality after surgical treatment of heart valve or prosthesis infective endocarditis The EndoSCORE. Int J Cardiol 241:97–102
Gatti G, Chocron S, Obadia JF et al (2020) Using surgical risk scores in nonsurgically treated infective endocarditis patients. Hellenic J Cardiol 61:246–252
Wang TKM, Pemberton J (2018) Performance of endocarditis-specific risk scores in surgery for infective endocarditis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 66:333–335
Wang TK, Oh T, Voss J, Gamble G, Kang N, Pemberton J (2015) Comparison of contemporary risk scores for predicting outcomes after surgery for active infective endocarditis. Heart Vessels 30:227–234
Gatti G, Sponga S, Peghin M et al (2019) Risk scores and surgery for infective endocarditis: in search of a good predictive score. Scand Cardiovasc J 53:117–124
Varela L, López-Menéndez J, Redondo A, Rodríguez-Roda J (2018) External validation of the new predictive model for early mortality after surgical treatment of infective endocarditis: analysis of the reliability of EndoSCORE. Int J Cardiol 268:99
Mestres CA, Paré JC, Miró JM (2015) Organization and functioning of a multidisciplinary team for the diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis: a 30-year perspective (1985–2014). Rev Esp Cardiol 68:363–368
Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N et al (2000) Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 30:633–638
Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI et al (2008) Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1490–1495
Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD et al (2012) EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 41:734–744
Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, Gauducheau E, Lemeshow S, Salamon R (1999) European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16:9–13
O’Brien SM, Feng L, He X et al (2018) The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: part 2-statistical methods and results. Ann Thorac Surg 105:1419–1428
Shahian DM, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V et al (2018) The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: part 1-background, design considerations, and model development. Ann Thorac Surg 105:1411–1418
Gaca JG, Sheng S, Daneshmand MA et al (2011) Outcomes for endocarditis surgery in North America: a simplified risk scoring system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141:98-106.e1-2
Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Fernández-Pérez C et al (2017) The evolving nature of infective endocarditis in Spain. J Am Coll Cardiol 70(22):2795–2804
Miro JM, Ambrosioni J (2019) Infective endocarditis: an ongoing global challenge. Eur Heart J 40(39):3233–3236
López-García E, Banegas JR, Graciani Pérez-Regadera A, Gutiérrez-Fisac JL, Alonso J, Rodríguez-Artalejo F (2003) Valores de referencia de la versión española del Cuestionario de Salud SF-36 en población adulta de más de 60 años. Med Clin 120:568–573
Botelho-Nevers E, Thuny F, Casalta JP et al (2009) Dramatic reduction in infective endocarditis-related mortality with a management-based approach. Arch Intern Med 169(14):1290–1298
Kumar A, Anstey C, Tesar P et al (2019) Risk factors for mortality in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery for infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 108(4):1101–1106
Farag M, Borst T, Sabashnikov A et al (2017) Surgery for infective endocarditis: outcomes and predictors of mortality in 360 consecutive patients. Med Sci Monit 23:3617–3626
Varela L, Navas E, Fernández-Hidalgo N et al (2019) Correction to: Prognostic factors of mortality after surgery in infective endocarditis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Infection 47(6):879–895
Habib G, Erba PA, Iung B et al (2019) Clinical presentation, aetiology and outcome of infective endocarditis. Results of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European infective endocarditis) registry: a prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J. 40(39):3222–3232
Patrat-Delon S, Rouxel A, Gacouin A et al (2016) EuroSCORE II underestimates mortality after cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49(3):944–951
Fernandez-Felix BM, Barca LV, Garcia-Esquinas E, Correa-Pérez A, Fernández-Hidalgo N, Muriel A et al (2021) Prognostic models for mortality after cardiac surgery in patients with infective endocarditis: a systematic review and aggregation of prediction models. Clin Microbiol Infect 27(10):1422–1430
Gatti G, Chocron S, Obadia JF et al (2020) Using surgical risk scores in nonsurgically treated infective endocarditis patients. Hellenic J Cardiol 61(4):246–252
Acknowledgements
The outcomes described would not have been possible without the collaboration from the Central-Barcelona-10-EI-Team.
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS) provided to JMM a personal 80:20 research grant during 2017–2021. MHM held a Rio Hortega Research (CMI/00062) from the “Instituto de salud Carlos III” and the “Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad,” Madrid (Spain) during 2018–2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
Alejandro Fernandez-Cisneros, Marta Hernandez-Meneses, Jaume Llopis, Josep Maria Miró, and Eduard Quintana contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Alejandro Fernandez Cisneros, Marta Hernandez-Meneses, and Jaume Llopis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Alejandro Fernandez-Cisneros, Marta Hernandez-Meneses, and Eduard Quintana, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Institutional review board approved the present clinical study and waived individual consent form (HCB/2018/0522).
Consent to participate
Institutional review board approved the present clinical study and waived individual consent form.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
JMM has received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from Angelini, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Contrafect, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV. All other authors: no conflicts.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fernández-Cisneros, A., Hernández-Meneses, M., Llopis, J. et al. Risk scores’ performance and their impact on operative decision-making in left-sided endocarditis: a cohort study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 42, 33–42 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-022-04516-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-022-04516-2