MAGGIC, STS, and EuroSCORE II Risk Score Comparison After Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery.
MAGGIC, STS, and EuroSCORE II Risk Score Comparison After Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery.
复制标题
主动脉瓣和二尖瓣手术后的MAGGIC、STS和EuroSCORE II风险评分比较。
DOI：
10.1053/j.jvca.2020.11.053
复制
发表时间：
2021-06
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Mazimba S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhuo DX;Bilchick KC;Shah KP;Mehta NK;Mwansa H;Nkanza-Kabaso K;Kwon Y;Breathett KK;Hilton-Buchholz EJ;Mazimba S
比较荟萃分析全球慢性心力衰竭组（MAGGIC）风险评分与已建立的胸外科医师协会（STS）和EuroSCORE II风险预测模型在主动脉瓣和二尖瓣手术后死亡率区分方面的差异。回顾性队列研究。单一的三级学术医疗中心。2009年至2014年，共259例接受开放式主动脉瓣置换术或开放式二尖瓣修复/置换术的患者。回顾性病历审查。使用二元逻辑回归和受试者操作特征分析研究了每例患者的MAGGIC、STS和EuroSCORE II风险评分，主要终点为1年死亡率，次要终点为30天死亡率。一年死亡率C统计量在风险评分中相似（STS 0.709，95%置信区间[CI] 0.578-0.841; MAGGIC 0.673，95% CI 0.547-0.799; EuroSCORE II 0.642，95% CI 0.521-0.762; STS和MAGGIC之间p = 0.56; STS和EuroSCORE II之间p = 0.20; MAGGIC和EuroSCORE II之间的p = 0.69）。30天死亡率C-统计量在STS组之间也相似（0.797，95% CI 0.655-0.939; p < 0.0001 v无效假设），MAGGIC（0.721，95% CI 0.581-0.860; p = 0.33 v STS）和EuroSCORE II（0.688，95% CI 0.557-0.818; p = 0.06 v STS; p = 0.68 v MAGGIC）。MAGGIC风险评分在主动脉瓣和二尖瓣手术后的死亡率区分方面与STS和EuroSCORE II风险模型相似，尽管样本量较小。这一发现在建立MAGGIC作为一个可行的预后模型在这个人群亚组中具有重要意义，具有更少的变量和易用性代表了STS和EuroSCORE II的关键优势。
To compare the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score with the established Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and EuroSCORE II risk prediction models regarding mortality discrimination after aortic and mitral valve surgery. Retrospective cohort study. Single tertiary academic medical center. A total of 259 patients who underwent open aortic valve replacement or open mitral valve repair/replacement from 2009–2014. Retrospective chart review. MAGGIC, STS, and EuroSCORE II risk scores for each patient were studied using binary logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis for the primary endpoint of one-year mortality and secondary endpoint of 30-day mortality. One-year mortality C-statistics were similar across risk scores (STS 0.709, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.578–0.841; MAGGIC 0.673, 95% CI 0.547–0.799; EuroSCORE II 0.642, 95% CI 0.521–0.762; p = 0.56 between STS and MAGGIC; p = 0.20 between STS and EuroSCORE II; and p = 0.69 between MAGGIC and EuroSCORE II). Thirty-day mortality C-statistics also were similar between STS (0.797, 95% CI 0.655–0.939; p < 0.0001 v null hypothesis), MAGGIC (0.721, 95% CI 0.581–0.860; p = 0.33 v STS), and EuroSCORE II (0.688, 95% CI 0.557–0.818; p = 0.06 v STS; p = 0.68 v MAGGIC). The MAGGIC risk score performs similarly to STS and EuroSCORE II risk models in mortality discrimination after aortic and mitral valve surgery, albeit in a small sample size. This finding has important implications in establishing MAGGIC as a viable prognostic model in this population subset, with fewer variables and ease of use representing key advantages over STS and EuroSCORE II.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Sawano M;Shiraishi Y;Kohsaka S;Nagai T;Goda A;Mizuno A;Sujino Y;Nagatomo Y;Kohno T;Anzai T;Fukuda K;Yoshikawa T
通讯作者：
Yoshikawa T
慢性（MAGGIC）心力衰竭风险评分的荟萃分析全球组：验证一种简单的工具，用于预测心力衰竭的发病率和死亡率，并保留了射血分数。
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Rich JD;Burns J;Freed BH;Maurer MS;Burkhoff D;Shah SJ
通讯作者：
Shah SJ
影响因子：
9.7
作者：
Bouabdallaoui, Nadia;Stevens, Susanna R.;Rouleau, Jean L.
通讯作者：
Rouleau, Jean L.
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Sullivan, Patrick G.;Wallach, Joshua D.;Ioannidis, John P. A.
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
影响因子：
39.3
作者：
Pocock, Stuart J.;Ariti, Cono A.;Doughty, Rob N.
通讯作者：
Doughty, Rob N.