Cardiac surgery risk scoring systems: In quest for the best.

Q2 Medicine Heart Asia Pub Date : 2018-04-04 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1136/heartasia-2018-011017
Milind Hote
{"title":"Cardiac surgery risk scoring systems: In quest for the best.","authors":"Milind Hote","doi":"10.1136/heartasia-2018-011017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 3 decades, there has been a profusion in the number of cardiac surgery risk score systems available (approximately 20 in current adult cardiac surgery literature).1 One common factor in these scoring systems is that they have all been proposed from either North America or Europe.1 The field of cardiac surgery is continuously evolving with changes in surgical indications, spectrum of diseases, surgical expertise, perioperative management and extensiveness of surgical audit. Consequently, newer scoring systems have been regularly published with the common objective of predicting surgical mortality and more recently,  surgical morbidity. Search of literature reveals no scoring system from large population subgroups like Japan, South-east Asia or Africa.\n\nSeveral reports from these populations have employed the commonly used ‘western’ risk scoring systems like the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (Euroscore) I, Euroscore II, Parsonnet or the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) systems to their population. There are numerous studies which compare the performance of two or more different scoring systems on some subset of cardiac surgery patients (eg, low risk vs high risk coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), single/multivalve surgery, CABG+ valve surgery, aortic surgery and so on2 3). The conclusions commonly drawn indicate that Euroscore II and STS scores are most widely used; however, even these two scores give different predictions in different groups. Thus, these ‘western’ scores are seen to be relatively ‘off-the-mark’ in correctly predicting the operative mortality in eastern population, thus essentially being inaccurate to a variable extent4. The common ‘inaccuracies’ reported include variations between the subgroups of elective/semiurgent/emergency surgical procedures and low-risk/ high-risk surgical groups.\n\nThese ‘discrepancies’ raise the following questions:\n\n1. What is the utility of scoring systems? Should all cardiac surgeries at …","PeriodicalId":12858,"journal":{"name":"Heart Asia","volume":"10 1","pages":"e011017"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/heartasia-2018-011017","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartasia-2018-011017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Over the last 3 decades, there has been a profusion in the number of cardiac surgery risk score systems available (approximately 20 in current adult cardiac surgery literature).1 One common factor in these scoring systems is that they have all been proposed from either North America or Europe.1 The field of cardiac surgery is continuously evolving with changes in surgical indications, spectrum of diseases, surgical expertise, perioperative management and extensiveness of surgical audit. Consequently, newer scoring systems have been regularly published with the common objective of predicting surgical mortality and more recently,  surgical morbidity. Search of literature reveals no scoring system from large population subgroups like Japan, South-east Asia or Africa. Several reports from these populations have employed the commonly used ‘western’ risk scoring systems like the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (Euroscore) I, Euroscore II, Parsonnet or the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) systems to their population. There are numerous studies which compare the performance of two or more different scoring systems on some subset of cardiac surgery patients (eg, low risk vs high risk coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), single/multivalve surgery, CABG+ valve surgery, aortic surgery and so on2 3). The conclusions commonly drawn indicate that Euroscore II and STS scores are most widely used; however, even these two scores give different predictions in different groups. Thus, these ‘western’ scores are seen to be relatively ‘off-the-mark’ in correctly predicting the operative mortality in eastern population, thus essentially being inaccurate to a variable extent4. The common ‘inaccuracies’ reported include variations between the subgroups of elective/semiurgent/emergency surgical procedures and low-risk/ high-risk surgical groups. These ‘discrepancies’ raise the following questions: 1. What is the utility of scoring systems? Should all cardiac surgeries at …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏手术风险评分系统:追求最佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Heart Asia
Heart Asia Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antiplatelet agents for preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications. Statin adherence and persistence on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Taiwan. Anaesthesia use in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies Association of school hours with outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in schoolchildren Clinical consequences of poor adherence to lipid-lowering therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease: can we do better?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1