↓ Skip to main content

In search of the ideal risk-scoring system for very high-risk cardiac surgical patients: a two-stage approach

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
In search of the ideal risk-scoring system for very high-risk cardiac surgical patients: a two-stage approach
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13019-016-0405-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Ranucci, Umberto Di Dedda, Serenella Castelvecchio, Maria Teresa La Rovere, Lorenzo Menicanti, Surgical and Clinical Outcome Research (SCORE) Group

Abstract

Cardiac surgery patients at very high risk are difficult to stratify with the existing risk scores. The objective of this study is to assess the clinical performance of two existing risk stratification scores (EuroSCORE II and ACEF score) in the setting of very high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and to identify a possible strategy to better address this patient population. Three-thousand-four-hundred-twenty eight (3,428) consecutive adult patients receiving cardiac operations at a single institution were investigated. Patients having an operative mortality risk >25 % at either the EuroSCORE II or the ACEF score were selected (105 patients). The discrimination power and calibration of the EuroSCORE II and the ACEF score were investigated. Factors associated with operative mortality were included in a multivariable logistic regression model and a new model was re-built for this patient population. The observed mortality rate was 26 %. The expected mortality rate was underestimated by the EuroSCORE II (16 %) and overestimated by the ACEF Score (36 %). The EuroSCORE maintained a good discrimination (c-statistics 0.75) while the ACEF score did not (c-statistics 0.52). Within this patient population, the independent risk factors for operative mortality were emergency surgery, serum creatinine levels, pulmonary hypertension, and preoperative anemia. A model based on these factors provided an expected mortality risk of 26 % with a good discrimination (c-statics 0.82). Applying this model to extremely high-risk patients (expected mortality rate > 50 %) resulted in the re-classification of 25 % of the patient population. The existing risk models have a poor clinical relevance in the segment of patients at very high mortality risk. This is particularly frustrating, because these patients are those where the decision-making process is more important. A two-stage classification strategy (first stage: EuroSCORE II/ACEF score risk > 25 %; second stage: reclassification based on pulmonary hypertension, serum creatinine, and anemia) seems a possible strategy to correctly address very high-risk patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 53%
Engineering 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#1,075
of 1,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#344,703
of 402,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,382 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.