ACEF、ACEF II、更新版 ACEF II 和 EuroSCORE II 风险评分对孤立的非泵型冠状动脉旁路移植术患者的预测能力

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.011
Joon Chul Jung MD PhD, Jae-Woo Ju MD, Hyoung Woo Chang MD PhD, Jae Hang Lee MD PhD, Dong Jung Kim MD PhD, Cheong Lim MD PhD, Kay-Hyun Park MD PhD, Jun Sung Kim MD PhD
{"title":"ACEF、ACEF II、更新版 ACEF II 和 EuroSCORE II 风险评分对孤立的非泵型冠状动脉旁路移植术患者的预测能力","authors":"Joon Chul Jung MD PhD, Jae-Woo Ju MD, Hyoung Woo Chang MD PhD, Jae Hang Lee MD PhD, Dong Jung Kim MD PhD, Cheong Lim MD PhD, Kay-Hyun Park MD PhD, Jun Sung Kim MD PhD","doi":"10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluated the performances of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) I and II scores and compare them with that of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II score in patients who underwent isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). Additionally, this study was designed to externally validate the performance of the updated ACEF II score. Retrospective observational study. A total of 936 patients who underwent OPCABG between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022, at a tertiary teaching center were included. None. Predicted operative mortality was calculated using a risk score model. The predictive performance of each score was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. The ACEF II score demonstrated the highest C-statistic (area under the curve = 0.831, 95% confidence interval: 0.691-0.971), while the C-statistics for ACEF I, updated ACEF II, and EuroSCORE II were 0.793 (0.645-0.940), 0.698 (0.524-0.872), and 0.780 (0.606-0.954), respectively. The ACEF II score exhibited significantly better discriminative performance than the updated ACEF II score (p = 0.010); however, no significant differences were observed compared with the ACEF I and EuroSCORE II scores (p = 0.118 and 0.354, respectively). ACEF I and II scores are reliable risk stratification models with performances comparable to the EuroSCORE II score in patients undergoing isolated OPCABG. However, the updated ACEF II score failed to demonstrate improved performance.","PeriodicalId":15176,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Performances of ACEF, ACEF II, Updated ACEF II, and EuroSCORE II Risk Scores in Patients Undergoing Isolated Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting\",\"authors\":\"Joon Chul Jung MD PhD, Jae-Woo Ju MD, Hyoung Woo Chang MD PhD, Jae Hang Lee MD PhD, Dong Jung Kim MD PhD, Cheong Lim MD PhD, Kay-Hyun Park MD PhD, Jun Sung Kim MD PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study evaluated the performances of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) I and II scores and compare them with that of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II score in patients who underwent isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). Additionally, this study was designed to externally validate the performance of the updated ACEF II score. Retrospective observational study. A total of 936 patients who underwent OPCABG between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022, at a tertiary teaching center were included. None. Predicted operative mortality was calculated using a risk score model. The predictive performance of each score was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. The ACEF II score demonstrated the highest C-statistic (area under the curve = 0.831, 95% confidence interval: 0.691-0.971), while the C-statistics for ACEF I, updated ACEF II, and EuroSCORE II were 0.793 (0.645-0.940), 0.698 (0.524-0.872), and 0.780 (0.606-0.954), respectively. The ACEF II score exhibited significantly better discriminative performance than the updated ACEF II score (p = 0.010); however, no significant differences were observed compared with the ACEF I and EuroSCORE II scores (p = 0.118 and 0.354, respectively). ACEF I and II scores are reliable risk stratification models with performances comparable to the EuroSCORE II score in patients undergoing isolated OPCABG. However, the updated ACEF II score failed to demonstrate improved performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.011\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了年龄、肌酐和射血分数(ACEF)I 和 II 评分的性能,并将其与欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)II 评分进行了比较。此外,本研究还旨在从外部验证更新版 ACEF II 评分的性能。回顾性观察研究。共纳入了 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间在一家三级教学中心接受 OPCABG 手术的 936 例患者。无。采用风险评分模型计算预测手术死亡率。使用接收者操作特征曲线和校准图评估了每个评分的预测性能。ACEF II评分的C统计量最高(曲线下面积=0.831,95%置信区间:0.691-0.971),而ACEF I、更新版ACEF II和EuroSCORE II的C统计量分别为0.793(0.645-0.940)、0.698(0.524-0.872)和0.780(0.606-0.954)。ACEF II 评分的判别性能明显优于更新的 ACEF II 评分(p = 0.010);但与 ACEF I 和 EuroSCORE II 评分相比,没有观察到明显差异(p = 0.118 和 0.354)。ACEF I 和 II 评分是可靠的风险分层模型,在接受孤立 OPCABG 患者中的表现与 EuroSCORE II 评分相当。但是,更新后的 ACEF II 评分未能显示出更好的性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Predictive Performances of ACEF, ACEF II, Updated ACEF II, and EuroSCORE II Risk Scores in Patients Undergoing Isolated Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
This study evaluated the performances of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) I and II scores and compare them with that of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II score in patients who underwent isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). Additionally, this study was designed to externally validate the performance of the updated ACEF II score. Retrospective observational study. A total of 936 patients who underwent OPCABG between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022, at a tertiary teaching center were included. None. Predicted operative mortality was calculated using a risk score model. The predictive performance of each score was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. The ACEF II score demonstrated the highest C-statistic (area under the curve = 0.831, 95% confidence interval: 0.691-0.971), while the C-statistics for ACEF I, updated ACEF II, and EuroSCORE II were 0.793 (0.645-0.940), 0.698 (0.524-0.872), and 0.780 (0.606-0.954), respectively. The ACEF II score exhibited significantly better discriminative performance than the updated ACEF II score (p = 0.010); however, no significant differences were observed compared with the ACEF I and EuroSCORE II scores (p = 0.118 and 0.354, respectively). ACEF I and II scores are reliable risk stratification models with performances comparable to the EuroSCORE II score in patients undergoing isolated OPCABG. However, the updated ACEF II score failed to demonstrate improved performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
17.90%
发文量
606
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia is primarily aimed at anesthesiologists who deal with patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic or vascular surgical procedures. JCVA features a multidisciplinary approach, with contributions from cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgeons, cardiologists, and other related specialists. Emphasis is placed on rapid publication of clinically relevant material.
期刊最新文献
Masthead Contents Editorial Board 41st Symposium in Barbados brochure Articles to Appear in Future Issues
×
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