Comparing the Predictive Power of Preoperative Risk Assessment Tools to Best Predict Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Kidney Transplant Patients.

Surgery Research and Practice Pub Date : 2019-03-20 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2019/9080856
Colin P Dunn, Emmanuel U Emeasoba, Ari J Holtzman, Michael Hung, Joshua Kaminetsky, Omar Alani, Stuart M Greenstein
{"title":"Comparing the Predictive Power of Preoperative Risk Assessment Tools to Best Predict Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Kidney Transplant Patients.","authors":"Colin P Dunn, Emmanuel U Emeasoba, Ari J Holtzman, Michael Hung, Joshua Kaminetsky, Omar Alani, Stuart M Greenstein","doi":"10.1155/2019/9080856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients undergoing kidney transplantation have increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events due to histories of hypertension, end-stage renal disease, and dialysis. As such, they are especially in need of accurate preoperative risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared three different risk assessment models for their ability to predict major adverse cardiac events at 30 days and 1 year after transplant. These were the PORT model, the RCRI model, and the Gupta model. We used a method based on generalized U-statistics to determine statistically significant improvements in the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), based on a common major adverse cardiac event (MACE) definition. For the top-performing model, we added new covariates into multivariable logistic regression in an attempt to create further improvement in the AUC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AUCs for MACE at 30 days and 1 year were 0.645 and 0.650 (PORT), 0.633 and 0.661 (RCRI), and finally 0.489 and 0.557 (Gupta), respectively. The PORT model performed significantly better than the Gupta model at 1 year (<i>p</i>=0.039). When the sensitivity was set to 95%, PORT had a significantly higher specificity of 0.227 compared to RCRI's 0.071 (<i>p</i>=0.009) and Gupta's 0.08 (<i>p</i>=0.017). Our additional covariates increased the receiver operator curve from 0.664 to 0.703, but this did not reach statistical significance (<i>p</i>=0.278).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the three calculators, PORT performed best when the sensitivity was set at a clinically relevant level. This is likely due to the unique variables the PORT model uses, which are specific to transplant patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":30584,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Research and Practice","volume":"2019 ","pages":"9080856"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9080856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing kidney transplantation have increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events due to histories of hypertension, end-stage renal disease, and dialysis. As such, they are especially in need of accurate preoperative risk assessment.

Methods: We compared three different risk assessment models for their ability to predict major adverse cardiac events at 30 days and 1 year after transplant. These were the PORT model, the RCRI model, and the Gupta model. We used a method based on generalized U-statistics to determine statistically significant improvements in the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), based on a common major adverse cardiac event (MACE) definition. For the top-performing model, we added new covariates into multivariable logistic regression in an attempt to create further improvement in the AUC.

Results: The AUCs for MACE at 30 days and 1 year were 0.645 and 0.650 (PORT), 0.633 and 0.661 (RCRI), and finally 0.489 and 0.557 (Gupta), respectively. The PORT model performed significantly better than the Gupta model at 1 year (p=0.039). When the sensitivity was set to 95%, PORT had a significantly higher specificity of 0.227 compared to RCRI's 0.071 (p=0.009) and Gupta's 0.08 (p=0.017). Our additional covariates increased the receiver operator curve from 0.664 to 0.703, but this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.278).

Conclusions: Of the three calculators, PORT performed best when the sensitivity was set at a clinically relevant level. This is likely due to the unique variables the PORT model uses, which are specific to transplant patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比较术前风险评估工具对肾移植患者主要心脏不良事件的最佳预测能力。
背景:接受肾移植的患者由于有高血压、终末期肾病和透析史,发生不良心血管事件的风险增加。因此,他们尤其需要准确的术前风险评估:我们比较了三种不同的风险评估模型预测移植后 30 天和 1 年内主要不良心脏事件的能力。这些模型分别是 PORT 模型、RCRI 模型和 Gupta 模型。根据常见的重大心脏不良事件(MACE)定义,我们使用了一种基于广义 U 统计量的方法来确定接收者操作曲线下面积(AUC)在统计学上的显著改善。对于表现最好的模型,我们在多变量逻辑回归中加入了新的协变量,试图进一步提高AUC:30 天和 1 年后 MACE 的 AUC 分别为 0.645 和 0.650(PORT)、0.633 和 0.661(RCRI),最后分别为 0.489 和 0.557(Gupta)。PORT 模型在 1 年后的表现明显优于 Gupta 模型(P=0.039)。当灵敏度设定为 95% 时,PORT 的特异性为 0.227,明显高于 RCRI 的 0.071(P=0.009)和 Gupta 的 0.08(P=0.017)。我们的附加协变量将接收器运算曲线从 0.664 增加到 0.703,但未达到统计学意义(p=0.278):结论:在三种计算器中,当灵敏度设定在临床相关水平时,PORT 的表现最佳。这可能是由于 PORT 模型使用了移植患者特有的变量。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Surgery Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for surgeons and the surgical research community. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on clinical and laboratory research relevant to surgical practice and teaching, with an emphasis on findings directly affecting surgical management.
×
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