These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Agreement between the new EuroSCORE II, the Logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
    Author: Arangalage D, Cimadevilla C, Alkhoder S, Chiampan A, Himbert D, Brochet E, Iung B, Nataf P, Depoix JP, Vahanian A, Messika-Zeitoun D.
    Journal: Arch Cardiovasc Dis; 2014; 107(6-7):353-60. PubMed ID: 24996564.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The Logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score are routinely used to identify patients at high surgical risk as potential candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIMS: To compare the new EuroSCORE II with the Logistic EuroSCORE and the STS score. METHODS: From October 2006 to June 2011, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent a TAVI were enrolled prospectively. RESULTS: Among 272 patients, the EuroSCORE II was significantly lower and moderately correlated with the Logistic EuroSCORE (9±8% vs. 23±14%, P<0.01; r=0.61, P<0.001), but similar to and poorly correlated with the STS (10±9%, P=0.10; r=0.25, P<0.001). Based on recommended high-risk thresholds (Logistic EuroSCORE≥20%; STS≥10%), a EuroSCORE II≥7% provided the best diagnostic value. However, using the EuroSCORE II, Logistic EuroSCORE or STS score, only 51%, 58% and 37% of patients, respectively, reached these thresholds. Contingency analyses showed that agreements between the EuroSCORE II and the Logistic EuroSCORE or the STS score were modest or poor, respectively, with a risk assessment different in 28% and 36% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A EuroSCORE II≥7% corresponded to a Logistic EuroSCORE≥20% or STS score≥10%, but correlations and agreements were at best modest and only approximately half of the patients reached these thresholds. Our results highlight the limits of current scoring systems and reinforce the European guidelines stressing the importance of clinical judgment in addition to risk scores.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]