COMPARISON OF FREQUENTLY USED RISK SCORING SYSTEMS IN PATIENTS WHICH WAS PERFORMED OPEN HEART SURGERY BY THE COUNCIL DECISION AND DETERMINING THE MOST SUITABLE RISK SCORING SYSTEM FOR OUR PATIENT POPULATION

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we compared the Türkskor risk scoring system, which we have used for many years in our clinic, with other risk scoring systems. Methods: A retrospective review of 267 patients we presented to the council before open heart surgery was performed in the Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic of Dr Siyami Ersek Training and Research Hospital in 2013-2014. The efficiency of Türkskor, standard EuroSCORE, logistics EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II, calculated with the preoperative parameters of the patients, in predicting the actual mortality was compared with the ROC analysis. Results: When the whole patient population was evaluated, the mean Türkscore value was 6.05±3.46, the mean standard EuroSCORE value was 6.09±2.85, the mean logistic EuroSCORE value was 7.72±7.81, and the mean EuroSCORE II value was 3.75±5.49. The total mortality was 44 (44/267 %16,5). The efficiencies of Türkskor, Standard, logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II in determining mortality in all patient groups were compared with the ROC curve. With these results, the area under the curve was AUC: 0.729 %95 CI: 0.640-0.817 for Türkskor, AUC: 0.710 %95 CI: 0.618-0.803 for Standard EuroSCORE , AUC: 0.715 %95 CI: 0.623-0.807 for Logistic EuroSCORE and AUC:0.730 95% CI: 0.639-0.822 for EuroSCORE 2 were calculated . When compared in all risk groups, Türkskor, Standard EuroSCORE, logistic Euroscore Euroscore II were found to be similar in predicting mortality (p>0.05). Conclusions: Türkskor, Standard EuroSCORE, logistics EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II are similarly successful in predicting mortality for all patient groups.

Keywords

• Active Endocarditis
• Emergency Surgery
• Mortality
• Non-fatal Morbidity
• Preoperative Critical State
• Renal Insufficiency

References

1. 1. Alhan,C.(2004),Risk Assessment,Enver Duran Cardiovascular Surgery, (1st ed.)(pp.1039–1045),İstanbul,Turkey.
2. 2. Cai T, Tian L, Lloyd-Jones DM.(2011) Comparing costs associated with risk stratification rules for t-year survival, Biostatistics, Volume 12, Issue 4, (pp. 597–609).
3. 3. Paç,M.,Quality Management and Risk Staging in Cardiovascular Surgery (1st ed.)(pp.1243-1255)
4. 4. Akgül,A., Gürsoy,M., Bakuy,V, Polat,E.B., Kömürcü,İ.G., Kavala,A.A., Türkyılmaz,S., Çağlar,İ.M., Tekdöş,Y., Atay,M., Altun,Ş., Gulmaliyev,C., Memmedov.S.(2013), Comparison of standard Euroscore, logistic Euroscore and Euroscore II in prediction of early mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting Anatolian J Cardiology,13(5):425-431 | DOI:10.5152/akd.2013.136.
5. 5. Mavioğlu İ.(2001) Establishing a national database in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery; 9:93-6.
6. 6. Dişcigil,B., Badak,M.İ., Gürgün,U., Boğa,M., Özkısacık,E.A., Güneş,T.Ü.(2005), Evaluation of open heart surgery results with the European cardiac risk scoring system (EuroSCORE). Journal of ADU Faculty of Medicine; 6(1)19-234.
7. 7. Kaplan,M., Kut,M.S., Çimen,S.,Demirtaş,M.M.(2003), Applicability of EuroSCORE(European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) Risk Scoring System in Turkish Patients Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery; 11:147-158
8. 8. Özen,Y. Cantürk,E., Bayezid,Ö,(2012) Evaluation of Patients who had Surgery in our Clinic with Euroscore I Risk Scoring System Koşuyolu Heart Journal; 15(3):105-109

9. 9. Biancari,F.,Vasques,F.,Mikkola,R.,Martin,M.,Lahtinen,J.,Heikkinen,J.,(2012) Validation of EuroSCORE II in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Volume 93, Issue 6, (pp.1930-1935).