Risk scores for predicting outcomes in valvular heart disease: How useful?

被引:55
作者
Mack M.J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Health Care System, Heart Hospital Baylor Plano, Plano, TX 75093
关键词
Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve replacement; Risk algorithms; Transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Valve disease;
D O I
10.1007/s11886-010-0167-9
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Risk scoring tools have been developed from clinical databases to predict expected patient mortality from cardiac surgical procedures. The risk algorithms have been developed and validated from variables that have been demonstrated to be predictive of mortality. At least six risk models have been developed from different databases measuring outcomes of cardiac surgery. These algorithms have then been used to select very high risk patients for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) who would be appropriate candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The two most common risk models used for TAVI selection are the logistic EuroSCORE (LES) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) algorithms. Although both models are accurate in predicting mortality in low-risk patients, the LES has been clearly demonstrated to overpredict expected mortality by a factor of three in high-risk candidates for AVR. Various factors that also impact mortality but are not included in either algorithm include liver disease, frailty, porcelain aorta, and previous radiation. Despite these shortcomings, risk algorithms are effective models for predicting risk, with the STS-PROM being more accurate in high-risk patients. Ultimately, a new risk algorithm specific for TAVI will need to be developed once sufficient databases are developed. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011.
引用
收藏
页码:107 / 112
页数:5
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Cowper D.C., Kubal J.D., Maynard C., Hynes D.M., A primer and comparative review of major US mortality databases, Ann Epidemiol, 12, pp. 462-468, (2002)
[2]  
Hannan E.L., Racz M.J., Jollis J.G., Peterson E.D., Using Medicare claims data to assess provider quality for CABG surgery: Does it work well enough?, Health Serv Res, 31, pp. 659-678, (1997)
[3]  
Hannan E.L., Kilburn Jr. H., Lindsey M.L., Lewis R., Clinical versus administrative data bases for CABG surgery. Does it matter?, Med Care, 30, pp. 892-907, (1992)
[4]  
Mack M.J., Herbert M., Prince S., Dewey T.M., Magee M.J., Edgerton J.R., Does reporting of coronary artery bypass grafting from administrative databases accurately reflect actual clinical outcomes?, J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 129, pp. 1309-1317, (2005)
[5]  
Shahian D.M., Silverstein T., Lovett A.F., Wolf R.E., Normand S.-L.T., Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards, Circulation, 115, 12, pp. 1518-1527, (2007)
[6]  
Geissler H.J., Holzl P., Marohl S., Kuhn-Regnier F., Mehlhorn U., Sudkamp M., De Vivie E.R., Risk stratification in heart surgery: Comparison of six score systems, European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 17, 4, pp. 400-406, (2000)
[7]  
Roques F., Nashef S.A., Michel P., Gauducheau E., De Vincentiis C., Baudet E., Cortina J., David M., Faichney A., Gabrielle F., Gams E., Harjula A., Jones M.T., Pintor P.P., Salamon R., Thulin L., Risk factors and outcomes in European cardiac surgery: Analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients, Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 15, pp. 816-822, (1999)
[8]  
Roques F., Nashef S.A., Michel P., Risk factors for early mortality after valve surgery in Europe in the 1990s: Lessons from the EuroSCORE pilot program, J Heart Valve Dis, 10, pp. 572-577, (2001)
[9]  
Ambler G., Omar R.Z., Royston P., Kinsman R., Keogh B.E., Taylor K.M., Generic, simple risk stratification model for heart valve surgery, Circulation, 112, 2, pp. 224-231, (2005)
[10]  
Edwards F.H., Peterson E.D., Coombs L.P., DeLong E.R., Jamieson W.R.E., Shroyer A.L.W., Grover F.L., Prediction of operative mortality after valve replacement surgery, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37, 3, pp. 885-892, (2001)