Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

EuroScore 2 for identification of patients for transapical aortic valve replacement - a single center retrospective in 206 patients

Andreas Goetzenich1*, Imke Deppe1, Heike Schnöring1, George L Gafencu1, Dumitrita-Alina Gafencu1, Hülya Yildirim1, Lachmandath Tewarie1, Jan Spillner1 and Ajay Moza2

Author Affiliations

1 Clinic for Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Clinic RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, Aachen 52074, Germany

2 Transplantation and Cardiac Surgery, The Royal Brompton and Harefield Trust, Harefield, United Kingdom

For all author emails, please log on.

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2012, 7:89  doi:10.1186/1749-8090-7-89

Published: 21 September 2012

Abstract

Background

Operative risk scoring algorithms identify patients with severe AS for transcatheter valve implantation in whom the anticipated operative mortality for conventional surgery would be considered prohibitive. We compared the three risk scores EuroScore 1 (LES), society of thoracic surgeons’ (STS) score and ACEF (age-creatinine-ejection fraction score) to the readjusted EuroScore 2 recently presented.

Methods

We reviewed all consecutive patients receiving either isolated conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR) or transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) in a two-year period (n = 206). 30-days mortality was considered as primary endpoint.

Results

TA-TAVI was performed in 76 patients, isolated cAVR in 130 patients. Overall mortality was 4.4% (TA-TAVI: 7.9%; cAVR: 2.3%). EuroScore 2 showed a good estimation for the entire population as well as within the subgroups: 4,02 ± 5,36% (TA-TAVI: 6.16 ± 7.14%, cAVR: 2.77 ± 3.42%). Predicted mortalities as assessed by LES were largely overestimated (TA-TAVI: 27.4 ± 20.9% cAVR: 10.6 ± 10.6%, sensitivity: 0.89, specificity: 0.71). STS predicted mortality was 6.3 ± 4.4% for TA-TAVI patients as to 3.2 ± 3.1% for cAVR patients (sens.: 0.22, spec.: 0.96) and ACEF predicted a mortality of 1.16 ± 0.36% for cAVR and 1.58 ± 0.59% for TA-TAVI patients (sens.: 0.78, spec.: 0.89).

Conclusion

The newly refined EuroScore 2 showed a good correlation within the studied population. For the individual patient, new cut-offs will have to be defined to triage patients for TAVI procedure. A drawback for complex score systems such as EuroScore and STS is the lack of recalibration to smaller populations as encountered in even large single centers.

Keywords:
Risk models; Transapical valve replacement; Valve disease