Systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality risk prediction models in adult cardiac surgery.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesGuidelines advocate that patients being considered for thoracic surgery should undergo a comprehensive preoperative risk assessment. Multiple risk prediction models to estimate the risk of mortality after thoracic surgery have been developed, but their quality and performance has not been reviewed in a systematic way. The objective was to systematically review these models and critically appraise their performance.MethodsThe Cochrane Library and the MEDLINE database were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2019. Studies that developed or validated a model predicting perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery were included. Data were extracted based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies.ResultsA total of 31 studies describing 22 different risk prediction models were identified. There were 20 models developed specifically for thoracic surgery with two developed in other surgical specialties. A total of 57 different predictors were included across the identified models. Age, sex and pneumonectomy were the most frequently included predictors in 19, 13 and 11 models, respectively. Model performance based on either discrimination or calibration was inadequate for all externally validated models. The most recent data included in validation studies were from 2018. Risk of bias (assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) was high for all except two models.ConclusionsDespite multiple risk prediction models being developed to predict perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery, none could be described as appropriate for contemporary thoracic surgery. Contemporary validation of available models or new model development is required to ensure that appropriate estimates of operative risk are available for contemporary thoracic surgical practice.
| S-EPMC8906726 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6279047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Several models have been developed to predict the risk of mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aims to systematically identify and evaluate the performance of published risk prediction models for CAP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library in November 2011 for initial derivation and validation studies for models which predict pneumonia mortality. We aimed to present the comparative usefulness of their mortality prediction. RESULTS: We identified 20 different published risk prediction models for mortality in CAP. Four models relied on clinical variables that could be assessed in community settings, with the two validated models BTS1 and CRB-65 showing fairly similar balanced accuracy levels (0.77 and 0.72, resp.), while CRB-65 had AUROC of 0.78. Nine models required laboratory tests in addition to clinical variables, and the best performance levels amongst the validated models were those of CURB and CURB-65 (balanced accuracy 0.73 and 0.71, resp.), with CURB-65 having an AUROC of 0.79. The PSI (AUROC 0.82) was the only validated model with good discriminative ability among the four that relied on clinical, laboratorial, and radiological variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that other risk prediction models improve upon the well-established CURB-65 and PSI models.
| S-EPMC3817804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify existing prognostic delirium prediction models and evaluate their validity and statistical methodology in the older adult (?60 years) acute hospital population. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2016. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and CHARMS Statement guided protocol development. INCLUSION CRITERIA:age >60 years, inpatient, developed/validated a prognostic delirium prediction model. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:alcohol-related delirium, sample size ?50. The primary performance measures were calibration and discrimination statistics. Two authors independently conducted search and extracted data. The synthesis of data was done by the first author. Disagreement was resolved by the mentoring author. RESULTS:The initial search resulted in 7,502 studies. Following full-text review of 192 studies, 33 were excluded based on age criteria (<60?years) and 27 met the defined criteria. Twenty-three delirium prediction models were identified, 14 were externally validated and 3 were internally validated. The following populations were represented: 11 medical, 3 medical/surgical and 13 surgical. The assessment of delirium was often non-systematic, resulting in varied incidence. Fourteen models were externally validated with an area under the receiver operating curve range from 0.52 to 0.94. Limitations in design, data collection methods and model metric reporting statistics were identified. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium prediction models for older adults show variable and typically inadequate predictive capabilities. Our review highlights the need for development of robust models to predict delirium in older inpatients. We provide recommendations for the development of such models.
| S-EPMC5931306 | biostudies-other
Project description:The predictive capability of various risk assessment models (RAMs) in evaluating the risk of mortality in burn patients is not well established. It is also unclear which RAM provides the highest discriminative ability and presents the highest clinical utility. We pooled all available studies to establish this validity and compare the predictive capability of the various RAMs.MethodsWe reviewed PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from their inception up until December 2021 for studies evaluating risk of mortality in burn patients as stratified by RAMs. Data were pooled using random-effect models and presented as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.ResultsThirty-four studies, comprising of a total of 98,610 patients, were included in our analysis. Most studies were found to have a low risk of bias and a good measure of applicability. Nine RAMs were evaluated. We discovered that the classic Baux; the revised Baux; and the Fatality by Longevity, APACHE II score, Measured Extent of burn, and Sex (FLAMES) scores presented with the highest discriminative power with there being no significant difference between the results presented by them [AUROCs (95% CI), 0.92 (0.90-0.95), 0.92 (0.90-0.93), 0.94 (0.91-0.97), respectively, with P < 0.00001 for all].ConclusionsMany RAMs exist with no consensus on the optimal model to utilize and assess risk of mortality for burn patients. This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the current RAMs' discriminative ability to predict mortality in patients with burn injuries. This meta-analysis demonstrated that RAMs designed for assessing mortality in individuals with burns have acceptable to great discriminative capacity, with the classic Baux, revised Baux, and FLAMES demonstrating superior discriminative performance in predicting death. FLAMES exhibited the highest discriminative ability among the RAMs studied.
| S-EPMC9760622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextBeing born very preterm is associated with elevated risk for neonatal mortality. The aim of this review is to give an overview of prediction models for mortality in very premature infants, assess their quality, identify important predictor variables, and provide recommendations for development of future models.MethodsStudies were included which reported the predictive performance of a model for mortality in a very preterm or very low birth weight population, and classified as development, validation, or impact studies. For each development study, we recorded the population, variables, aim, predictive performance of the model, and the number of times each model had been validated. Reporting quality criteria and minimum methodological criteria were established and assessed for development studies.ResultsWe identified 41 development studies and 18 validation studies. In addition to gestational age and birth weight, eight variables frequently predicted survival: being of average size for gestational age, female gender, non-white ethnicity, absence of serious congenital malformations, use of antenatal steroids, higher 5-minute Apgar score, normal temperature on admission, and better respiratory status. Twelve studies met our methodological criteria, three of which have been externally validated. Low reporting scores were seen in reporting of performance measures, internal and external validation, and handling of missing data.ConclusionsMultivariate models can predict mortality better than birth weight or gestational age alone in very preterm infants. There are validated prediction models for classification and case-mix adjustment. Additional research is needed in validation and impact studies of existing models, and in prediction of mortality in the clinically important subgroup of infants where age and weight alone give only an equivocal prognosis.
| S-EPMC3169543 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6841861 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6476502 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC9400257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aim to identify and critically appraise clinical prediction models of mortality and function following ischaemic stroke.MethodsElectronic databases, reference lists, citations were searched from inception to September 2015. Studies were selected for inclusion, according to pre-specified criteria and critically appraised by independent, blinded reviewers. The discrimination of the prediction models was measured by the area under the curve receiver operating characteristic curve or c-statistic in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was measured using I2. Appropriate appraisal tools and reporting guidelines were used in this review.Results31395 references were screened, of which 109 articles were included in the review. These articles described 66 different predictive risk models. Appraisal identified poor methodological quality and a high risk of bias for most models. However, all models precede the development of reporting guidelines for prediction modelling studies. Generalisability of models could be improved, less than half of the included models have been externally validated(n = 27/66). 152 predictors of mortality and 192 predictors and functional outcome were identified. No studies assessing ability to improve patient outcome (model impact studies) were identified.ConclusionsFurther external validation and model impact studies to confirm the utility of existing models in supporting decision-making is required. Existing models have much potential. Those wishing to predict stroke outcome are advised to build on previous work, to update and adapt validated models to their specific contexts opposed to designing new ones.
| S-EPMC5788336 | biostudies-literature