English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives  To assess and compare the predictive ability of three risk evaluation systems (SinoSCORE, EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system) in patients aged ≥70, and who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in East China.    Methods  Three risk evaluation systems were applied to 1,946 consecutive patients who underwent isolated CABG from January 2004 to September 2016 in two hospitals. Patients were divided into two subsets according to their age: elderly group (age ≥70) with a younger group (age <70) used for comparison. The outcome of interest in this study was in-hospital mortality. The entire cohort and subsets of patients were analyzed. The calibration and discrimination in total and in subsets were assessed by the Hosmer–Lemeshow and the C statistics respectively.    Results  Institutional overall mortality was 2.52%. The expected mortality rates of SinoSCORE, EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system were 0.78(0.64)%, 1.43(1.14)% and 0.78(0.77)%, respectively. SinoSCORE achieved the best discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.829), followed by the STS risk evaluation system (AUC = 0.790) and EuroSCORE II (AUC = 0.769) in the entire cohort. In the elderly group, the observed mortality rate was 4.82% while it was 1.38% in the younger group. SinoSCORE (AUC = .829) also achieved the best discrimination in the elderly group, followed by the STS risk evaluation system (AUC = .730) and EuroSCORE II (AUC = 0.640) while all three risk evaluation systems all had good performances in the younger group. SinoSCORE, EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system all achieved positive calibrations in the entire cohort and subsets.    Conclusion  The performance of the three risk evaluation systems was not ideal in the entire cohort. In the elderly group, SinoSCORE appeared to achieve better predictive efficiency than EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system.

peerj

Assessment of three risk evaluation systems for patients aged ≥70 in East China: performance of SinoSCORE, EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system