Current Surgical Risk Scores Overestimate Risk in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Objective

Risk-scoring systems for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) were largely derived from sternotomy cases. We evaluated the accuracy of current risk scores in predicting outcomes after minimally invasive AVR (mini-AVR). Because transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is being considered for use in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, accurate mini-AVR risk assessment is necessary.

Methods

We reviewed 1,018 consecutive isolated mini-AVR cases (2009 to 2015). After excluding patients with Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) scores ≥4, we calculated each patient’s European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II, TAVR Risk Score (TAVR-RS), and age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score (ACEF). We compared all 4 scores’ accuracy in predicting mini-AVR 30-day mortality by computing each score’s observed-to-expected mortality ratio (O:E). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested discrimination, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tested calibration.

Results

Among 941 patients (mean age, 72 ± 12 years), 6 deaths occurred within 30 days (actual mortality rate, 0.6%). All 4 scoring systems overpredicted expected mortality after mini-AVR: ACEF (1.4%), EuroSCORE II (1.9%), STS-PROM (2.0%), and TAVR-RS (2.1%). STS-PROM best estimated risk for patients with STS-PROM scores 0 to <1 (0.6 O:E), ACEF for patients with STS-PROM scores 2 to <3 (0.6 O:E), and TAVR-RS for patients with STS-PROM scores 3 to <4 (0.7 O:E). ROC curves showed only fair discrimination and calibration across all risk scores.

Conclusions

In low-risk patients who underwent mini-AVR, current surgical scoring systems overpredicted mortality 2-to-3-fold. Alternative dedicated scoring systems for mini-AVR are needed for more accurate outcomes assessment.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement minimally invasive surgery outcomes risk analysis risk modeling

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chang

Raza

Altarabsheh

et al. Minimally invasive approaches to surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 106: 1881–1889.30189193

Kirmani

BH.

Jones

SG.

Malaisrie

et al. Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4: CD011793.28394022

Akowuah

Goodwin

AT.

Owens

et al. Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017; 18: 46.28129780

Hancock

HC.

Maier

RH.

Kasim

et al. Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 2491–2492.31097171

Brown

ML.

McKellar

SH.

Sundt

et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 670–679.19258087

Phan

Xie

Di Eusanio

et al. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 1499–1511.25064516

Stoliński

Musiał

Plicner

et al. Respiratory system function in patients after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery: a case control study. Innovations 2017; 12: 127–136.28338550

D’Agostino

RS.

Jacobs

JP.

Badhwar

et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2018 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 105: 15–23.29233331

Leon

MB.

Smith

CR.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1597–1607.20961243

10.

Popma

JJ.

Adams

DH.

Reardon

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 1972–1981.24657695

11.

Mack

MJ.

Leon

MB.

Smith

et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2477–2484.25788234

12.

Adams

DH.

Popma

JJ.

Reardon

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1790–1798.24678937

13.

Leon

MB.

Smith

CR.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1609–1620.27040324

14.

Reardon

MJ.

Van Mieghem

NM.

Popma

et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1321–1331.28304219

15.

Mack

MJ.

Leon

MB.

Thourani

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1695–1705.30883058

16.

Popma

JJ.

Deeb

GM.

Yakubov

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1706–1715.30883053

17.

Thourani

VH.

Suri

RM.

Gunter

et al. Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 55–61.25442986

18.

O’Brien

SM.

Shahian

DM.

Filardo

et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2—isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: S23–S42.19559823

19.

Nashef

SA.

Roques

Michel

et al. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 16: 9–13.10456395

20.

Edwards

FH.

Cohen

DJ.

O’Brien

et al. Development and validation of a risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA Cardiol 2016; 1: 46–52.27437653

21.

Ranucci

Castelvecchio

Conte

et al. The easier, the better: age, creatinine, ejection fraction score for operative mortality risk stratification in a series of 29,659 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142: 581–586.21703638

22.

Lamelas

. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: the “Miami Method”. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4: 71–77.25694981

23.

Lamelas

Mawad

Williams

et al. Isolated and concomitant minimally invasive minithoracotomy aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 155: 926–936.29061465

24.

Lamelas

Aberle

Macias

et al. Cannulation strategies for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Innovations 2020; 15: 261–269.32437215

25.

Furukawa

Kuss

Aboud

et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: matched propensity score analysis of 808 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46: 221–227.24446478

26.

Glauber

Miceli

Gilmanov

et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 1222–1226.22516391

27.

Jensen

HA.

Thourani

VH.

Forcillo

et al. Does a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score predict outcomes in transfemoral and alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 474–482.27209615

28.

Barili

Pacini

Capo

et al. Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after isolated aortic valve surgery: a comparison with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and logistic EuroSCORE. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 1539–1544.23473650

29.

Nishimura

RA.

Otto

CM.

Bonow

et al. AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2017; 2017: e1159–e1195.

30.

Thyregod

HG.

Steinbrüchel

DA.

Ihlemann

et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: 1-year results from the all-comers NOTION randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 2184–2194.25787196

31.

Rosato

Santini

Barbanti

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: e003326.27154298

32.

Witberg

Lador

Yahav

et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low surgical risk: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matched observational studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92: 408–416.29388308

33.

Généreux

Head

SJ.

Hahn

et al. Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new Achilles’ heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 1125–1136.23375925

34.

Goldstone

AB.

Chiu

Baiocchi

et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1847–1857.29117490

35.

Puskas

JD.

Gerdisch

Nichols

et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet strategies after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 2717–2726.29903344

36.

Jawitz

OK.

Gulack

BC.

Grau-Sepulveda

et al. Reoperation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13: 1515–1525.32535005

37.

Roberts

WC.

. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation 2005; 111: 920–925.15710758

38.

Furukawa

Kuss

Emmel

et al. Minimally invasive versus transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: a one-to-one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156: 1825–1834.29861110

39.

Lamelas

Alnajar

. Recent advances in devices for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Expert Rev Med Devices 2020; 17: 201–208.32101073

40.

Ensminger

Fujita

Bauer

et al. Rapid deployment versus conventional bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 1417–1428.29598861

41.

Kocher

AA.

Laufer

Haverich

et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis with a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 110–116.23058665

42.

Baron

SJ.

Wang

House

et al. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate risk. Circulation 2019; 139: 877–888.30586747

43.

Society of Thoracic Surgeons . STS adult cardiac surgery database risk model variables-data version 2.9, http://riskcalc.sts.org/stswebriskcalc/assets/About%20the%20STS%20Risk%20Calculator%20v29.pdf (2020, accessed August 25, 2020).

44.

Nair

SK.

Sudarshan

CD.

Thorpe

et al. Mini-Stern Trial: a randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156: 2124–2132.30075959

45.

Hirji

McGurk

Kiehm

et al. Utility of 90-day mortality vs 30-day mortality as a quality metric for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes. JAMA Cardiol 2020; 5: 156–165.31851293

46.

Lamelas

Williams

RF.

Mawad

et al. Complications associated with femoral cannulation during minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 1927–1932.28017338

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.11 MB

0.40 MB

0.00 MB