Comparison of EuroSCORE II and STS Risk Scoring Systems in Patients who Underwent Open-heart Surgery.

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Erkam Saka, Esin Öztürk, Aslıhan Esra Yüksel, Nüzhet Seden Kocabaş
{"title":"Comparison of EuroSCORE II and STS Risk Scoring Systems in Patients who Underwent Open-heart Surgery.","authors":"Erkam Saka, Esin Öztürk, Aslıhan Esra Yüksel, Nüzhet Seden Kocabaş","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2025.241778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In the present study, European Cardiac Operative Risk Assessment System II (EuroSCORE II) and the Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk scoring systems were used to predict mortality in patients who underwent various types of open-heart surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and combined valve surgery with coronary artery bypass grafting, in the cardiovascular surgery operating room. The aim was to compare risk assessment systems regarding their clinical applicability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 469 patients, 141 (30.1%) female and 328 (69.9%) male, were included in the study. All risk factors were retrospectively recorded according to the EuroSCORE II and STS risk assessment systems. Statistical analysis was performed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Predicted and actual mortality rates were compared for each risk-scoring system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When the ability of the EuroSCORE and STS risk classifications to predict mortality was analyzed using the ROC curve, the area under the curve for the EuroSCORE II risk score was 78.3% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), while the area under the curve for the STS risk score was 82.3% (<i>P</i> < 0.001). In our study, the STS scoring system was found to have a greater predictive value than EuroSCORE II. When the patients' observed and expected mortality rates were examined according to the EuroSCORE II and STS risk scores, no statistically significant relationship was found between the expected and observed mortality rates for each risk group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, the STS risk scoring system was found to be more accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality than the EuroSCORE. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the expected and observed mortality rates in either risk-scoring system. There is no consensus in the literature regarding which scoring system is more effective. More studies from different societies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":" ","pages":"163-169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2025.241778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, European Cardiac Operative Risk Assessment System II (EuroSCORE II) and the Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk scoring systems were used to predict mortality in patients who underwent various types of open-heart surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and combined valve surgery with coronary artery bypass grafting, in the cardiovascular surgery operating room. The aim was to compare risk assessment systems regarding their clinical applicability.

Methods: A total of 469 patients, 141 (30.1%) female and 328 (69.9%) male, were included in the study. All risk factors were retrospectively recorded according to the EuroSCORE II and STS risk assessment systems. Statistical analysis was performed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Predicted and actual mortality rates were compared for each risk-scoring system.

Results: When the ability of the EuroSCORE and STS risk classifications to predict mortality was analyzed using the ROC curve, the area under the curve for the EuroSCORE II risk score was 78.3% (P < 0.001), while the area under the curve for the STS risk score was 82.3% (P < 0.001). In our study, the STS scoring system was found to have a greater predictive value than EuroSCORE II. When the patients' observed and expected mortality rates were examined according to the EuroSCORE II and STS risk scores, no statistically significant relationship was found between the expected and observed mortality rates for each risk group.

Conclusion: In our study, the STS risk scoring system was found to be more accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality than the EuroSCORE. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the expected and observed mortality rates in either risk-scoring system. There is no consensus in the literature regarding which scoring system is more effective. More studies from different societies are needed.

EuroSCORE II和STS风险评分系统在心内直视手术患者中的比较
目的:本研究采用欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统II (EuroSCORE II)和胸外科学会(STS)风险评分系统对在心血管外科手术室行各种类型的心内直视手术(包括冠状动脉搭桥术、主动脉瓣置换术、二尖瓣置换术、瓣膜手术联合冠状动脉搭桥术)患者的死亡率进行预测。目的是比较风险评估系统的临床适用性。方法:共纳入469例患者,其中女性141例(30.1%),男性328例(69.9%)。根据EuroSCORE II和STS风险评估系统对所有风险因素进行回顾性记录。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行统计学分析。对每个风险评分系统的预测死亡率和实际死亡率进行比较。结果:采用ROC曲线分析EuroSCORE和STS风险分类预测死亡率的能力时,EuroSCORE II风险评分曲线下面积为78.3% (P < 0.001), STS风险评分曲线下面积为82.3% (P < 0.001)。在我们的研究中,发现STS评分系统比EuroSCORE II具有更大的预测价值。根据EuroSCORE II和STS风险评分检查患者的观察死亡率和预期死亡率时,各风险组的预期死亡率和观察死亡率之间没有统计学意义的关系。结论:在我们的研究中,发现STS风险评分系统在预测住院死亡率方面比EuroSCORE更准确。然而,在两种风险评分系统中,预期死亡率和观察死亡率之间没有统计学上的显著差异。关于哪种评分系统更有效,文献中没有达成共识。需要更多来自不同社会的研究。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信