Comparisons of Risk Scores for Infective Endocarditis Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

While multiple scoring systems exist to predict mortality in cardiac surgery, their utility in infective endocarditis (IE) remains uncertain, prompting this study to compare their prognostic accuracy. We conducted a comprehensive review using Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were pooled using Open-Meta[Analyst] software, and calibration analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4. Among 620 articles identified, 570 were screened, leading to 15 included studies. Twelve risk scores were analyzed for operative mortality discrimination in IE surgery, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.64 to 0.83. Among the IE-specific risk scores, AUCs (95% confidence interval) were highest for ANCLA (Anemia, NYHA class IV, critical state, large intracardiac destruction, surgery on thoracic aorta) 0.838 (0.803-0.873), AEPEI (Association pour l'Etude et la Prevention de l'Endocadite Infectieuse) 0.764 (0.726-0.802), RISK-E (Risk Endocarditis) (0.752 (0.662-0.842) and APORTEI (Análisis de los factores PROnósticos en el Tratamiento quirúrgico de la Endocarditis Infecciosa) 0.750 (0.726-0.774) scores. Regarding traditional risk scores, EuroSCORE II performed at 0.750 (0.725-0.775) but underestimated mortality compared with EuroSCORE I in calibration analysis. In conclusion, EuroSCORE II and several endocarditis-specific scores had moderate discrimination (AUC > 0.75) in predicting mortality after IE surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Angiology
Published
2025-01-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197241310571
Primary Topic
Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparisons of Risk Scores for Infective Endocarditis Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Muhammad Majid, Mary Schleicher, Gösta Pettersson, James Witten et al.
Angiology
Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
article

Comparisons of Risk Scores for Infective Endocarditis Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Muhammad Majid, Mary Schleicher, Gösta Pettersson, James Witten, Aro Daniela Arockiam, Bianca Honnekeri, Shinya Unai, Joseph El Dahdah, Shashank Shekhar, Ankit Agrawal, Elio Haroun, Brian P. Griffin, Tom Kai Ming Wang
article en

Abstract

While multiple scoring systems exist to predict mortality in cardiac surgery, their utility in infective endocarditis (IE) remains uncertain, prompting this study to compare their prognostic accuracy. We conducted a comprehensive review using Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were pooled using Open-Meta[Analyst] software, and calibration analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4. Among 620 articles identified, 570 were screened, leading to 15 included studies. Twelve risk scores were analyzed for operative mortality discrimination in IE surgery, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.64 to 0.83. Among the IE-specific risk scores, AUCs (95% confidence interval) were highest for ANCLA (Anemia, NYHA class IV, critical state, large intracardiac destruction, surgery on thoracic aorta) 0.838 (0.803-0.873), AEPEI (Association pour l'Etude et la Prevention de l'Endocadite Infectieuse) 0.764 (0.726-0.802), RISK-E (Risk Endocarditis) (0.752 (0.662-0.842) and APORTEI (Análisis de los factores PROnósticos en el Tratamiento quirúrgico de la Endocarditis Infecciosa) 0.750 (0.726-0.774) scores. Regarding traditional risk scores, EuroSCORE II performed at 0.750 (0.725-0.775) but underestimated mortality compared with EuroSCORE I in calibration analysis. In conclusion, EuroSCORE II and several endocarditis-specific scores had moderate discrimination (AUC > 0.75) in predicting mortality after IE surgery.

AngiologyVol. 77(2)
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.