Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKunt, A.G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKurtcephe, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHidiroglu, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCetin L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKucuker, A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBakuy V.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRuchan Akar, A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSener, E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T09:39:07Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T09:39:07Z
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.issn15699293
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/20985
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to compare additive and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), EuroSCORE II and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models in calculating mortality risk in a Turkish cardiac surgical population.METHODSThe current patient population consisted of 428 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2004 and 2012, extracted from the TurkoSCORE database. Observed and predicted mortalities were compared for the additive/logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and STS risk calculator. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) values were calculated for these models to compare predictive power.RESULTSThe mean patient age was 74.5 ± 3.9 years at the time of surgery, and 35.0% were female. For the entire cohort, actual hospital mortality was 7.9% (n = 34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.4-10.5). However, the additive EuroSCORE-predicted mortality was 6.4% (P = 0.23 vs observed; 95% CI 6.2-6.6), logistic EuroSCORE-predicted mortality was 7.9% (P = 0.98 vs observed; 95% CI 7.3-8.6), EuroSCORE II- predicted mortality was 1.7% (P = 0.00 vs observed; 95% CI 1.6-1.8) and STS predicted mortality was 5.8% (P = 0.10 vs observed; 95% CI 5.4-6.2). The mean predictive performance of the analysed models for the entire cohort was fair, with 0.7 (95% CI 0.60-0.79). AUC values for additive EuroSCORE, logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and STS risk calculator were 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.79), 0.70 (95% CI 0.59-0.80), 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.73), respectively.CONCLUSIONSEuroSCORE II significantly underestimated mortality risk for Turkish cardiac patients, whereas additive and logistic EuroSCORE and STS risk calculators were well calibrated. © 2013 The Author 2013.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivt022en_US
dc.subjectCoronary artery bypass graftingen_US
dc.subjectEuroSCOREen_US
dc.subjectMortalityen_US
dc.subjectRisk prediction modelen_US
dc.subjectSociety of Thoracic Surgeons risk calculatoren_US
dc.subjectageden_US
dc.subjectarticleen_US
dc.subjectcardiovascular mortalityen_US
dc.subjectclinical practiceen_US
dc.subjectcohort analysisen_US
dc.subjectcontrolled studyen_US
dc.subjectcoronary artery bypass graften_US
dc.subjectEuroSCOREen_US
dc.subjectEuroSCORE IIen_US
dc.subjectfemaleen_US
dc.subjecthumanen_US
dc.subjectintermethod comparisonen_US
dc.subjectmajor clinical studyen_US
dc.subjectmaleen_US
dc.subjectoutcome assessmenten_US
dc.subjectpopulation researchen_US
dc.subjectpriority journalen_US
dc.subjectprospective studyen_US
dc.subjectrating scaleen_US
dc.subjectreceiver operating characteristicen_US
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_US
dc.subjectSociety of Thoracic Surgeons modelen_US
dc.subjectAgeden_US
dc.subjectAlgorithmsen_US
dc.subjectArea Under Curveen_US
dc.subjectCoronary Artery Bypassen_US
dc.subjectDecision Support Techniquesen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectLogistic Modelsen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_US
dc.subjectRisk Assessmenten_US
dc.subjectRisk Factorsen_US
dc.subjectROC Curveen_US
dc.subjectTime Factorsen_US
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.subjectTurkeyen_US
dc.titleComparison of original EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and STS risk models in a Turkish cardiac surgical cohorten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Computer Engineering
dc.citation.spage625en_US
dc.citation.epage629en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber16en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/icvts/ivt022en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record