-

Abstract

Objective: To compare the feasibility of the EuroSCORE and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scoring systems for predicting the surgical mortality of isolated coronary artery bypass surgery patients. Methods: The risk scoring of 148 patients who were operated on between April 2005 and March 2009 was performed prospectively according to the EuroSCORE and STS risk scoring systems. The predicted and observed mortality rates according to each scoring system were compared. Results: Hospital mortality was 13.2% (24 patients). The predicted mortality rate according to EuroSCORE was 4.71±4.9%, whereas it was 1.17±1.35% for STS. There were no significant differences between predicted and observed mortality rates according to either scoring system. The area under the ROC curve was 0.712 for EuroSCORE and was 0.727 for STS. Conclusion: Both scoring systems were efficient for predicting mortality rates for our study. It is an advantage of STS that it also gives valuable information about morbidity but for our not found satisfactory. In conclusion new risks scores for our country’s population are needed

Keywords

• Aorta-coronary bypass, surgery, STS, EuroSCORE, risk

Aortokoroner bypass cerrahisi uygulanan olgularda EuroSCORE ve STS risk parametrelerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada izole koroner bypass olgularında operatif mortaliteyi öngörmede EuroSCORE ve STS risk belirleme sistemlerinin klinik uygulanabilirliğinin karşılaş- tırılması amaçlandı. Yöntemler: Nisan 2005-Mart 2009 tarihleri arasında opere edilen 182 izole koroner bypass olgusunun tüm risk faktörleri, EuroSCORE ve STS risk belirleme sistemlerine göre prospektif olarak kaydedildi. Öngörülen ve gerçekleşen mortalite oranları her risk skoru sistemi için karşı- laştırıldı. Bulgular: Operatif mortalite, 24 hasta ile %13,2 olarak bulundu. EuroSCORE için beklenen mortalite %4,71±4,9 iken STS için bu oran %1,17±1,35 idi. Beklenen ve ger- çekleşen mortalite oranları arasında fark bulunamadı. EuroSCORE için ROC Curve altında kalan alan 0,712, STS için 0,727 olarak hesaplandı. Sonuç: Her iki sistemde mortaliteyi öngörme kuvveti açı- sından, çalışmamızda yeterli olarak bulunmuştur. STS’nin operatif mortalite yanında oluşabilecek morbidite hakkında da bilgi vermesi ek bir avantaj olarak görülebilmesine rağmen çalışmamızda yeterli bulunmamıştır. Sonuç olarak ülkemiz popülasyonu için yeni risk skorlarına ihtiyaç vardır. Anahtar kelimeler: Aortokoroner bypas, cerrahi, STS, EuroSCORE, risk

Keywords

• Aortokoroner bypas, cerrahi, STS, EuroSCORE, risk

References

1. Ferraris V, Edwards F, Shahian D, Ferraris S. Risk Stratification
2. and Comorbidity. Cohn LH, ed. Cardiac Surgery in the
3. Adult. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008;199-246.
4. Parsonnet V, Dean D, Bernstein AD. A method of uniform
5. stratification of risk factor evaluating the results of surgery
6. in acquired adult heart disease. Circulation. 1989;79:3-12.
7. Higgins TL, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, et al. Stratification
8. of morbidity and mortality outcome by preoperative risk

9. factors in coronary artery bypass patients. J Am Med Assoc
10. ;267:2344-48.
11. Geissler HJ, Hölzl P, Sacha M, et al. Risk stratification in
12. heart surgery: Comparison of six score systems. Eur J Cardiothorac
13. Surg. 2000;17:400-6.
14. Hamulu A, Özbaran M, Atay Y, Posacıoğlu H. Koroner Bypass
15. Ameliyatında Mortalite ve Morbiditeye Etki Eden
16. Risk Faktörlerinin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi. Türk
17. Göğüs Kalp Damar Cer Derg 1995;3:245-52.
18. Nashef SAM, Roques F, Michel P, et al. European system
19. for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J
20. Cardiothorac Surg 1999;16:9-13.
21. Okutan H, Yavuz T, Peker O, et al. Kliniğimizde ameliyat
22. olan hastalarda Euroscore (European System for Cardiac
23. Operative Risk Evaluation) risk skorlama sistemine göre
24. sonuçlar. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cer Derg 2002;10:201-5.
25. Kaplan M, Kut MS, Çimen S, Demirtaş MM. EuroSCORE
26. (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation)
27. risk skorlama sisteminin ülkemiz hasta profilinde uygulanabilirliğinin
28. araştırılması. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cer
29. Derg 2003;11:147-58.
30. Soyal T, Özeren M, Kar M, et al. Koroner arter bypass reoperasyon
31. adaylarında mortalite ve morbiditenin EuroSCORE
32. ile retrospektif analizi. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cer Derg
33. ;12:241-5.
34. Clark RE. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database
35. status report. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;57:20-6.
36. Shroyer ALW, Coombs LP, Peterson ED, et al. The Society
37. of Thoracic Surgeons: 30-Day Operative Mortality and
38. Morbidity Risk Models. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1856-
39. -
40. Acinapura AJ, Jacobowitz IJ, Kramer MD, et al. Demographic
41. changes in coronary artery bypass surgery and its
42. effect on mortality and morbidity. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
43. ;4:175-81.
44. Ivanov J, Weisel RD, David TE, Naylor CD. Fifteen-year
45. trends in risk severity and operative mortality in elderly
46. patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
47. Circulation 1998;97:673-80.
48. McGrath LB, Laub GW, Graf D, Gonzalez-Lavin L. Hospital
49. death on a cardiac surgical service: negative influence of
50. chang ing practice patterns. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:410-
51. -
52. Baker DW, Jones R, Hodges J, et al. Management of heart
53. failure, III: the role of revascularization in the treatment of
54. patients with moderate or severe left ventricular systolic
55. dysfunction. JAMA 1994;272:1528-34.
56. Varnauskas E. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized
57. European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med
58. ;319:332-7.
59. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary
60. artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-
61. year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery
62. Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet
63. ;344:563-70.
64. Rogers WJ, Coggin CJ, Gersh BJ, et al. Ten-year follow-up
65. of quality of life in patients randomized to receive medical
66. therapy or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Coronary
67. Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Circulation 1990; 82:
68. -58.
69. Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G, et al. Comparison of
70. surgical and medical group survival in patients with left
71. main equivalent coronary artery disease: long-term CASS
72. experience. Circulation 1995;91:2335-44.
73. Chaitman BR, Fisher LD, Bourassa MG, et al. Effect of
74. coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of
75. patients with left main coronary artery disease: report of the
76. Collaborative Study in Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS).
77. Am J Cardiol 1981;48:765-77.
78. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Djaiani G, et al. Cusimano
79. Off-Pump Coronary Artery Surgery for Reducing Mortality
80. and Morbidity: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational
81. Studies J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005;46:872-82.
82. Vanagas G, Kinduris1 Š, Leveckytė A. Comparison of various
83. score systems for risk stratification in heart surgery.
84. Medıcına 2003;39:739-44.
85. Mandel M, Simchen ES, Gurevich YZ. Does the EuroSCORE
86. perform well on the STS population? Eur J Cardiothoracic
87. Surg 2003;24:334-7.
88. Zheng Z, Li Y, Zhang S, Hu S. The Chinese Coronary Artery
89. Bypass Grafting Registry Study: how well does the
90. EuroSCORE predict operative risk for Chinese population.
91. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg 2009;35:54-61.
92. Karabulut H,Toraman F, Dağdelen S, ve ark. EuroSCORE
93. (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation)
94. Risk Skorlama Sistemi Gerçekçi mi? Türk Kardiyol Dern
95. Arş 2001;29:364-67.
96. Kandemir Ö, Büyükateş M, Turan SA, ve ark. Koroner Bypass
97. Cerrahisinde EuroSCORE VE STS (The Socıety Of
98. Thoracıc Surgeons) Risk Skorlama Yöntemlerinin Karşı-
99. laştırılması. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cer Derg 2007;18:78-
100. -