Risk stratification in heart surgery: comparison of six score systems.

OBJECTIVE: Risk scores have become an important tool in patient assessment, as age, severity of heart disease, and comorbidity in patients undergoing heart surgery have considerably increased. Various risk scores have been developed to predict mortality after heart surgery. However, there are significant differences between scores with regard to score design and the initial patient population on which score development was based. It was the purpose of our study to compare six commonly used risk scores with regard to their validity in our patient population. METHODS: Between September 1, 1998 and February 28, 1999, all adult patients undergoing heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in our institution were preoperatively scored using the initial Parsonnet, Cleveland Clinic, French, Euro, Pons, and Ontario Province Risk (OPR) scores. Postoperatively, we registered 30-day mortality, use of mechanical assist devices, renal failure requiring hemodialysis or hemofiltration, stroke, myocardial infarction, and duration of ventilation and intensive care stay. Score validity was assessed by calculating the area under the ROC curve. Odds ratios were calculated to investigate the predictive relevance of risk factors. RESULTS: Follow-up was able to be completed in 504 prospectively scored patients. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis for mortality showed the best predictive value for the Euro score. Predictive values for morbidity were considerably lower than predictive values for mortality in all of the investigated score systems. For most risk factors, odds ratios for mortality were substantially different from ratios for morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Among the investigated scores, the Euro score yielded the highest predictive value in our patient population. For most risk factors, predictive values for morbidity were substantially different from predictive values for mortality. Therefore, development of specific morbidity risk scores may improve prediction of outcome and hospital cost. Due to the heterogeneity of morbidity events, future score systems may have to generate separate predictions for mortality and major morbidity events.

Beating heart valve surgery using stentless xenografts as a surgical alternative for patients with end-stage renal failure.

Patients suffering from end-stage renal disease are an inhomogeneous high-risk group with a substantial perioperative mortality and morbidity when undergoing cardiac surgical procedures[1-3]. Myocardial ischemia, reperfusion injury and myocardial edema are a few of the deleterious consequences of the traditional use of cardioplegic arrest when performing valve surgery,irrespective of the type of cardioplegia used [4-7]. Novel operative techniques are required to reduce these induced perioperative risks. Clinical studies in the past have demonstrated the efficacy of beating heart valve surgery in the high-risk patient using retrograde, antegrade or combined coronary perfusion with warm oxygenated blood [8, 9]. We chose to combine the superior hemodynamic profile of stentless xenografts with the concept of performing valve replacement on the empty beating heart with continuous antegrade application of oxygenated blood in 2 chronic hemodialysis patients.

[Risk stratification in heart surgery: do risk scores facilitate the determination of indications?]. / Risikostratifizierung in der Herzchirurgie--Entscheidungshilfe bei der Indikationsstellung.

Various risk scores have been developed for the assessment of operative risk in cardiac surgery. Although risk stratification has been acknowledged as a useful tool to analyze trends in therapy and changes in patient populations, its relevance in assessing the indication for surgery has been questioned. It was the goal of this prospective study to compare 6 common risk scores with regard to the predictive value for mortality in individual patients. Between September 1998 and February 1999 all adult patients undergoing heart surgery were prospectively scored according to the following scores: initial Parsonnet, Cleveland Clinic, French, Euro, Pons, and the Ontario Province Risk score. Early lethality was assessed within 30 days postoperatively. Follow-up was completed in 504 patients. With the exception of the Ontario Province Risk score, lethality in the high risk group was overestimated by all scores, whereas lethality in low to moderate risk groups was underestimated by several scores. Mean scores of surviving and deceased patients showed a broad overlap with high standard deviations. Preoperative risk scores are effective tools for stratification of patient populations and the analysis of surgical outcome. With the aid of risk scores, operative risk can be sufficiently predicted for patient populations or subpopulations. The Euro score best predicted the outcome of our patients. However, when the indication for surgery is to be determined in an individual patient, risk scores should be only considered as an orientation in the decision process.