Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality risk prediction models in adult cardiac surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The most used mortality risk prediction models in cardiac surgery are the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (ES) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. There is no agreement on which score should be considered more accurate nor which score should be utilized in each population subgroup. We sought to provide a thorough quantitative assessment of these 2 models.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and captured information on discrimination, as quantified by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), and calibration, as quantified by the ratio of observed-to-expected mortality (O:E). We performed random effects meta-analysis of the performance of the individual models as well as pairwise comparisons and subgroup analysis by procedure type, time and continent.

Results

The ES2 {AUC 0.783 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.765-0.800]; O:E 1.102 (95% CI 0.943-1.289)} and STS [AUC 0.757 (95% CI 0.727-0.785); O:E 1.111 (95% CI 0.853-1.447)] showed good overall discrimination and calibration. There was no significant difference in the discrimination of the 2 models (difference in AUC -0.016; 95% CI -0.034 to -0.002; P = 0.09). However, the calibration of ES2 showed significant geographical variations (P < 0.001) and a trend towards miscalibration with time (P=0.057). This was not seen with STS.

Conclusions

ES2 and STS are reliable predictors of short-term mortality following adult cardiac surgery in the populations from which they were derived. STS may have broader applications when comparing outcomes across continents as compared to ES2.

Registration

Prospero (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) CRD42020220983.

SUBMITTER: Sinha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557799 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.MethodsSearch strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.ResultsThirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).ConclusionsDespite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1) and 2 (Ang-2), high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (sRAGE), soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (sTREM1), and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) have shown promising results for predicting all-cause mortality in critical care patients. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prognostic value of these biomarkers for mortality in adult patients with sepsis. METHODS:A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, for articles in English published from 01.01.1990 onwards, was conducted. The systematic review focused exclusively on observational studies of adult patients with sepsis, any randomized trials were excluded. For the meta-analysis, only studies which provide biomarker concentrations within 24 h of admission in sepsis survivors and nonsurvivors were included. Results are presented as pooled mean differences (MD) between nonsurvivors and survivors with 95% confidence interval for each of the six biomarkers. Studies not included in the quantitative analysis were narratively summarized. The risk of bias was assessed in all included studies using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS:The systematic literature search retrieved 2285 articles. In total, we included 44 studies in the qualitative analysis, of which 28 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean differences in biomarker concentration (nonsurvivors - survivors), measured at onset of sepsis, are listed as follows: (1) Ang-1: -?2.9 ng/ml (95% CI -?4.1 to -?1.7, p?<?0.01); (2) Ang-2: 4.9 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 7.1, p?<?0.01); (3) HMGB1: 1.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.0 to 2.4, p?=?0.05); (4) sRAGE: 1003 pg/ml (95% CI 628 to 1377, p?<?0.01); (5) sTREM-1: 87 pg/ml (95% CI 2 to 171, p?=?0.04); (6) suPAR: 5.2 ng/ml (95% CI 4.5 to 6.0, p?<?0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Ang-1, Ang-2, and suPAR provide beneficial prognostic information about mortality in adult patients with sepsis. The further development of standardized assays and the assessment of their performance when included in panels with other biomarkers may be recommended. Trial registration This study was recorded on PROSPERO, prospective register of systematic reviews, under the registration ID: CRD42018081226.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased postoperative cardiac troponin (cTn) independently predicts short-term mortality. Previous studies suggest that preoperative cTn also predicts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality after noncardiac surgery. The value of preoperative and perioperative changes in cTn as a prognostic tool for adverse outcomes has been sparsely investigated.Methods and findingsA systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic value of cTns for adverse outcome was conducted. Adverse outcome was defined as short-term (in-hospital or <30 days) and long-term (>30 days) MACE and/or all-cause mortality, in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The study protocol (CRD42018094773) was registered with an international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Preoperative cTn was a predictor of short- (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.9-6.5, p<0.001, adjusted OR 5.87, 95% CI 3.24-10.65, p<0.001) and long-term adverse outcome (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.0-17.3, p = 0.05, adjusted HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-3.0, p<0.001). Perioperative change in cTn was a predictor of short-term adverse outcome (OR 10.1, 95% CI 3.2-32.3, p<0.001). It was not possible to conduct pooled analyses for adjusted estimates of perioperative change in cTn as predictor of short- (a single study identified) and long-term (no studies identified) adverse outcome. Further, it was not possible to conduct pooled analyses for unadjusted estimates of perioperative change in cTn as predictor of long-term adverse outcome, since only one study was identified. Bivariate analysis of sensitivities and specificities were performed, and overall prognostic performance was summarized using summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for preoperative cTn and short-term adverse outcome was 0.43 and 0.86 respectively (area under the SROC curve of 0.68). There were insufficient studies to construct SROCs for perioperative changes in cTn and for long-term adverse outcome.ConclusionOur study indicates that although preoperative cTn and perioperative change in cTn might be valuable predictors of MACE and/or all-cause mortality in adult noncardiac surgical patients, its overall prognostic performance remains uncertain. Future large, representative, high-quality studies are needed to establish the potential role of cTns in perioperative cardiac risk stratification.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in China, which represents the leading cause of mortality. Precise CVD risk identification is the fundamental prevention component. This study sought to systematically review the CVD risk prediction models derived and/or validated in the Chinese population to promote primary CVD prevention.MethodsReports were included if they derived or validated one or more CVD risk prediction models in the Chinese population. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, etc., were searched. The risk of bias was assessed with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed in R using the package metamisc.ResultsFrom 55,183 records, 22 studies were included. Twelve studies derived 18 CVD risk prediction models, of which seven models were derived based on a multicentre cohort including more than two provinces of mainland China, and one was a model developed based on a New Zealand cohort including Chinese individuals. The number of predictors ranged from 6 to 22. The definitions of predicted outcomes showed considerable heterogeneity. Fourteen articles described 29 validations of 8 models. The Framingham model and pooled cohort equations (PCEs) are the most frequently validated foreign tools. Discrimination was acceptable and similar for men and women among models (0.60-0.83). The calibration estimates changed substantially from one population to another. Prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR) showed good calibration [observed/expected events ratio = 0.99, 95% PI (0.57,1.70)] and female sex [1.10, 95% PI (0.23,5.16)].ConclusionsSeveral models have been developed or validated in the Chinese population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear due to incomplete external validation and head-to-head comparison. Future research should focus on externally validating or tailoring these models to local settings.Trail registrationThis systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021277453).