Risk scores and surgery for infective endocarditis: in search of a good predictive score

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.

External validation of EuroSCORE I and II in patients with infective endocarditis: results from a nationwide prospective registry

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to externally validate EuroSCORE I and II in surgically treated endocarditis patients. The secondary objective was to assess the predictive performance of both models across sex, redo surgery, age, and urgency.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the Netherlands Heart Registration. All patients with infective endocarditis who underwent cardiac surgery between 2013 and 2021 were included. Predictive performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the curve), calibration (calibration-in-the-large and calibration plots), and a decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine cases were included. Overall postoperative 30-day mortality was 10.2%. The area under the curve was 0.73 for EuroSCORE I and 0.72 for EuroSCORE II. Both models overpredict postoperative 30-day mortality, with observed-to-expected ratios of 0.37 and 0.69. EuroSCORE I overpredicts mortality across the full range, whereas EuroSCORE II overpredicts mortality only above a 20% predicted probability. We observed no significant differences in predictive performance across sex, redo surgery, or age. Discriminative capacity of EuroSCORE II was poor in emergency surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EuroSCORE models demonstrate acceptable discriminative capacity in IE patients. EuroSCORE I consistently overestimates mortality and should not be utilized in endocarditis patients. EuroSCORE II can be used in IE patients up to a predicted probability of approximately 20%, regardless of sex, redo surgery, or age. Beyond this point, the predicted mortality risk should be halved to approach the true mortality risk. EuroSCORE II should not be used for risk prediction in emergency endocarditis surgeries and patients should not be withheld from indicated surgical treatment solely based on high EuroSCOREs.

Longitudinal Outcomes Following Mitral Valve Repair for Infective Endocarditis

Mitral valve repair is the ideal approach in managing mitral valve infective endocarditis for patients requiring surgery. However, viable repair is influenced by the extent of valve destruction and there can be technical challenges in reconstruction following debridement. Overall, data describing long-term outcomes following mitral repair of infective endocarditis are scarce. We, therefore, assessed the late outcomes of 101 consecutive patients who underwent mitral valve repair for IE at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute from 2001 to 2021. The 5- and 10-year survival rate was 80.8 ± 4.7% and 61.2 ± 9.2%, respectively. Among these 101 patients, 7 ultimately required mitral valve reoperation at a median of 5 years after their initial operation. These patients were of a mean age of 35.9 ± 7.3 years (range 22-44 years) at the time of their initial operation. The 5- and 10-year freedom from mitral valve reoperation was 93.6 ± 3.4% and 87.7 ± 5.2%, respectively. Overall, mitral valve repair can be an effective method for treating infective endocarditis with a favourable freedom from reoperation and mortality over the long term.

Prediction of 30-day mortality after surgery for infective endocarditis using risk scores: Insights from a European multicenter comparative validation study

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear today whether risk scores created specifically to predict early mortality after cardiac operations for infective endocarditis (IE) outperform or not the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II).

METHODS

Perioperative data and outcomes from a European multicenter series of patients undergoing surgery for definite IE were retrospectively reviewed. Only the cases with known pathogen and without missing values for all considered variables were retained for analyses. A comparative validation of EuroSCORE II and 5 specific risk scores for early mortality after surgery for IE-(1) STS-IE (Society of Thoracic Surgeons for IE); (2) PALSUSE (Prosthetic valve, Age ≥70, Large intracardiac destruction, Staphylococcus spp, Urgent surgery, Sex (female), EuroSCORE ≥10); (3) ANCLA (Anemia, New York Heart Association class IV, Critical state, Large intracardiac destruction, surgery on thoracic Aorta); (4) AEPEI II (Association pour l'Étude et la Prévention de l'Endocardite Infectieuse II); (5) APORTEI (Análisis de los factores PROnósticos en el Tratamiento quirúrgico de la Endocarditis Infecciosa)-was carried out using calibration plot and receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared 1:1 according to the Hanley-McNeil's method. The agreement between APORTEI score and EuroSCORE II of the 30-day mortality prediction after surgery was also appraised.

RESULTS

A total of 1,012 patients from 5 European university-affiliated centers underwent 1,036 cardiac operations, with a 30-day mortality after surgery of 9.7%. All IE-specific risk scores considered achieved better results than EuroSCORE II in terms of calibration; AEPEI II and APORTEI score showed the best performances. Despite poor calibration, EuroSCORE II overcame in discrimination every specific risk score (AUC, 0.751 vs 0.693 or less, P = .01 or less). For a higher/lesser than 20% expected mortality, the agreement of prediction between APORTEI score and EuroSCORE II was 86%.

CONCLUSION

EuroSCORE II discrimination for 30-day mortality after surgery for IE was higher than 5 established IE-specific risk scores. AEPEI II and APORTEI score showed the best results in terms of calibration.

ASSESS-IE: a Novel Risk Score for Patients with Infective Endocarditis

Mortality in patients with infective endocarditis (IE) remains high. The existing risk scores are relatively complex with limited clinical application. This study was conducted to establish a new risk model to predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in IE patients. A total of 1549 adult patients with definite IE admitted to Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (n=1354) or Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital (n=195) were included. The derivation cohort consisted of 1141 patients. The score was developed using the multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis for in-hospital death. Bootstrap analysis was used for validation. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Six risk factors were used as score parameters (1 point for each): aortic valve affected, previous valve replacement surgery, severe heart failure, elevated serum direct bilirubin, moderate-severe anemia and acute stage. The predictive value and calibration of the ASSESS-IE score for in-hospital death were excellent in the derivation (area under the curve [AUC]=0.781, p<0.001; Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.948) and validation (AUC=0.779, p<0.001; Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.520) cohorts. The score remained excellent in bootstrap validation (AUC=0.783). The discriminatory ability of the ASSESS-IE score for in-hospital (AUC: 0.781 vs. 0.799, p=0.398) and 6-month mortality (AUC: 0.778 vs. 0.814, p=0.040) were similar with that of Park's score which comprised 14 variables. The ASSESS-IE risk score is a new and robust risk-stratified tool for patients with IE, which might further facilitate clinical decision-making.

Perioperative risk stratification scores in infective endocarditis and its usefulness

Infective endocarditis continues to represent a serious disease worldwide with high morbidity and mortality rates despite advances in diagnosis and treatment. Risk assessment plays a pivotal role in determining the appropriate course of treatment for patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis. In this context, specific endocarditis risk scores have been developed trying to help in the risk assessment process. During the last 15 years, 19 specific endocarditis scores have been published. These newly created scores are very heterogenous in their characteristics, factors included, and validation strategies. The purpose of this review is to analyze the published specific infective endocarditis risk scores and discuss their advantages, limitations, and usefulness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01644-y.

Outcomes after surgery for infective endocarditis

The role of surgery in infective endocarditis is becoming established the world over. In spite of all recent advances, endocarditis remains a lethal disease following surgery. With the emergence of more difficult-to-treat microorganisms, sicker and older patients with multiple co-morbidities, and an increase in healthcare-associated infections, the need for surgery in the management of infective endocarditis is only bound to increase. Data on the use of surgery in endocarditis till date is largely from observational data due to the relative rarity of the disease and variable practice patterns around the world. Hopefully, with increasing awareness and more inter-institutional and international collaborations, more robust data will emerge to further establish the role of surgery. For the time being, individual patient management will require the active multi-disciplinary approach of an endocarditis team to provide the best possible outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01647-9.

Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Central Illustration : Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND

SHARPEN was the first dedicated score for in-hospital mortality prediction in infective endocarditis (IE) regardless of cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the ability of the SHARPEN score to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality and compare it with that of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including definite IE (Duke modified criteria) admissions from 2000 to 2016. The area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated to assess predictive ability. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression was performed. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We studied 179 hospital admissions. In-hospital mortality was 22.3%; 68 (38.0%) had cardiac surgery. Median (interquartile range, IQR) SHARPEN and CCI scores were 9(7-11) and 3(2-6), respectively. SHARPEN had better in-hospital mortality prediction than CCI in non-operated patients (AUC-ROC 0.77 vs. 0.62, p = 0.003); there was no difference in overall (p = 0.26) and in operated patients (p = 0.41). SHARPEN > 10 at admission was associated with decreased in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.87; p < 0.001), in non-operated (HR 3.46; p = 0.006) and operated (HR 6.86; p < 0.001) patients. CCI > 3 at admission was associated with worse in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.0; p = 0.002), and in operated patients (HR 5.57; p = 0.005), but not in non-operated patients (HR 2.13; p = 0.119). Post-discharge survival was worse in patients with SHARPEN > 10 (HR 3.11; p < 0.001) and CCI > 3 (HR 2.63; p < 0.001) at admission; however, there was no difference in predictive ability between these groups.

CONCLUSION

SHARPEN was superior to CCI in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-operated patients. There was no difference between the scores regarding post-discharge mortality.

Infective Endocarditis-Update for the Perioperative Clinician

Infective endocarditis is a common pathology routinely encountered by perioperative physicians. There has been a need for a comprehensive review of this important topic. In this expert review, the authors discuss in detail the incidence, etiology, definition, microbiology, and trends of infective endocarditis. The authors discuss the clinical and imaging criteria for diagnosing infective endocarditis and the perioperative considerations for the same. Other imaging modalities to evaluate infective endocarditis also are discussed. Furthermore, the authors describe in detail the clinical risk scores that are used for determining clinical prognostic criteria and how they are tied to the current societal guidelines. Knowledge about native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, with emphasis on the timing of surgical intervention-focused surgical approaches and analysis of current outcomes, are critical to managing such patients, especially high-risk patients like those with heart failure, patients with intravenous drug abuse, and with internal pacemakers and defibrillators in situ. And lastly, with the advancement of percutaneous transcatheter valves becoming a norm for the management of various valvular pathologies, the authors discuss an in-depth review of transcatheter valve endocarditis with a focus on its incidence, the timing of surgical interventions, outcome data, and management of high-risk patients.

Infective endocarditis: Do we have an effective risk score model? A systematic review

Background

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare, highly morbid condition with 17% in-hospital mortality. A total of 25-30% require surgery and there is ongoing debate with regard to markers predicting patient outcomes and guiding intervention. This systematic review aims to evaluate all IE risk scores currently available.

Methods

Standard methodology (PRISMA guideline) was used. Papers with risk score analysis for IE patients were included, with attention to studies reporting area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC/ROC). Qualitative analysis was carried out, including assessment of validation processes and comparison of these results to original derivation cohorts where available. Risk-of-bias analysis illustrated according to PROBAST guidelines.

Results

Of 75 articles initially identified, 32 papers were analyzed for a total of 20 proposed scores (range 66-13,000 patients), 14 of which were specific for IE. The number of variables per score ranged from 3 to 14 with only 50% including microbiological variables and 15% including biomarkers. The following scores had good performance (AUC > 0.8) in studies proposing the score (often the derivation cohort); however fared poorly when applied to a new cohort: PALSUSE, DeFeo, ANCLA, RISK-E, EndoSCORE, MELD-XI, COSTA, and SHARPEN. DeFeo score demonstrated the largest discrepancy with initial AUC of 0.88, compared to 0.58 when applied to different cohorts. The inflammatory response in IE has been well documented and CRP has been found to be an independent predictor for worse outcomes. There is ongoing investigation on alternate inflammatory biomarkers which may assist in IE management. Of the scores identified in this review, only three have included a biomarker as a predictor.

Conclusion

Despite the variety of available scores, their development has been limited by small sample size, retrospective collection of data and short-term outcomes, with lack of external validation, limiting their transportability. Future population studies and large comprehensive registries are required to address this unmet clinical need.

Contemporary risk models for infective endocarditis surgery: a narrative review

Infective endocarditis is a complex heterogeneous condition involving the infection of the endocardium and heart valves, leading to severe complications, including death. Surgery is often indicated in patients with infective endocarditis but is associated with elevated risk compared with other forms of cardiac surgery. Risk models play an important role in many cardiac surgeries as they can help inform clinicians and patients regarding procedural risk, decision-making to proceed or not, and influence perioperative management; however, they remain under-utilized in the infective endocarditis settings. Another crucial role of such risk models is to assess predicted versus found mortality, thereby allowing an assessment of institutional performance in infective endocarditis surgery. Traditionally, general cardiac surgery risk models such as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), EuroSCORE II, and Society of Thoracic Surgeon's score have been applied to endocarditis surgery. However, there has been the development of many endocarditis surgery-specific scores over the last decade. This review aims to discuss clinical characteristics and applications of all contemporary risk scores in the setting of surgical treatment of infective endocarditis.

Risk scores' performance and their impact on operative decision-making in left-sided endocarditis: a cohort study

The accuracy of contemporary risk scores in predicting perioperative mortality in infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial. The aim is to evaluate the performance of existent mortality risk scores for cardiovascular surgery in IE and the impact on operability at high-risk thresholds. A single-center retrospective review of adult patients diagnosed with acute left-sided IE undergoing surgery from May 2014 to August 2019 (n = 142) was done. Individualized risk calculation was obtained according to the available mortality risk scores: EuroScore I and II, PALSUSE, Risk-E, Costa, De Feo-Cotrufo, AEPEI, STS-risk, STS-IE, APORTEI, and ICE-PCS scores. A cross-validation analysis was performed on the score with the best area under the curve (AUC). The 30-day survival was 96.5% (95%CI 91-98%). The score with worse area under the curve (AUC = 0.6) was the STS-IE score, while the higher was for the RISK-E score (AUC = 0.89). The AUC of the majority of risk scores suggested acceptable performance; however, statistically significant differences in expected versus observed mortalities were common. The cross-validation analysis showed that a large number of survivors (> 75%) would not have been operated if arbitrary high-risk threshold estimates had been used to deny surgery. The observed mortality in our cohort is significantly lower than is predicted by contemporary risk scores. Despite the reasonable numeric performance of the analyzed scores, their utility in judging the operability of a given patient remains questionable, as demonstrated in the cross-validation analysis. Future guidelines may advise that denial of surgery should only follow a highly experienced Endocarditis Team evaluation.

Prognostic models for mortality after cardiac surgery in patients with infective endocarditis: a systematic review and aggregation of prediction models

BACKGROUND

There are several prognostic models to estimate the risk of mortality after surgery for active infective endocarditis (IE). However, these models incorporate different predictors and their performance is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed and critically appraised all available prediction models of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for IE, and aggregated them into a meta-model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that developed or updated a prognostic model of postoperative mortality in patient with IE.

METHODS

We assessed the risk of bias of the models using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) and we aggregated them into an aggregate meta-model based on stacked regressions and optimized it for a nationwide registry of IE patients. The meta-model performance was assessed using bootstrap validation methods and adjusted for optimism.

RESULTS

We identified 11 prognostic models for postoperative mortality. Eight models had a high risk of bias. The meta-model included weighted predictors from the remaining three models (EndoSCORE, specific ES-I and specific ES-II), which were not rated as high risk of bias and provided full model equations. Additionally, two variables (age and infectious agent) that had been modelled differently across studies, were estimated based on the nationwide registry. The performance of the meta-model was better than the original three models, with the corresponding performance measures: C-statistics 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.82), calibration slope 0.98 (95% CI 0.86-1.13) and calibration-in-the-large -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-model outperformed published models and showed a robust predictive capacity for predicting the individualized risk of postoperative mortality in patients with IE.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020192602).