Abstract
Background
The EuroSCORE, worldwide used as a model for prediction of mortality after cardiac surgery, has recently been renewed. Since October 2011, the EuroSCORE II calculator is available at the EuroSCORE website and recommended for clinical use. The intention of this paper is to compare the use of the initial EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II as a risk evaluation tool.
Methods
100 consecutive patients who underwent combined mitral valve and coronary bypass surgery (MVR + CABG) and 100 consecutive patients undergoing combined aortic valve surgery and coronary bypass surgery (AVR + CABG) at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center before 10 October 2011 were included. For both groups the initial EuroSCORE and the EuroSCORE II model were used for risk calculation and based on the calculated risks, cumulative sum charts (CUSUM) were constructed to evaluate the impact on performance monitoring.
Results
For the MVR + CABG group the calculated risk using the initial logistic EuroSCORE was 9.95 ± 8.47 (1.51–45.37) versus 5.08 ± 4.03 (0.67–19.76) for the EuroSCORE II. For the AVR + CABG group 9.50 ± 8.6 (1.51–69.5) versus 4.77 ± 6.6 (0.96–64.24), respectively. For both groups the calculated risk by the EuroSCORE II was statistically lower compared with the initial EuroSCORE (p < 0.001). This lower expected risk has influence on performance monitoring, using risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis.
Conclusion
The EuroSCORE II, based on a recently updated database, reduces the overestimation of the calculated risk by the initial EuroSCORE. This difference is statistically significant and the EuroSCORE II may also reflect better current surgical performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:734–45.
Nashef SAM, Roques F, Michel P, et al. European system for cardiac preoperative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16:9–13.
Parolari A, Pesce LL, Trezzi M, et al. EuroSCORE performance in valve surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(3):787–93.
Basraon J, Chandrashekhar YS, John R, et al. Comparison of risk scores to estimate periopertive mortality in aortic valve replacement surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(2):535–40.
Noyez L. Control charts, CUSUM techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9:494–9.
Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Al-Attor N, et al. Transcather valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1463–70.
Wouters CW, Noyez L. Is no news good news? Organized follow-up, an absolute necessity for the evaluation of myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:667–70.
Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Harrel FE, et al. Prognostic modeling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Stat Med. 2000;19:1059–79.
Noyez L, Kievit PC, Verkroost MWA, et al. Evaluation of quality in adult cardiac surgery: let us speak the same language. Neth Heart J. 2010;18:365–9.
Baan J, Yong ZY, Koch KT, et al. Percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis in patients at high risk or rejected for surgical valve replacement. Neth Heart J. 2010;18:16–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noyez, L., Kievit, P.C., van Swieten, H.A. et al. Cardiac operative risk evaluation: The EuroSCORE II, does it make a real difference?. Neth Heart J 20, 494–498 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-012-0327-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-012-0327-1