Comparison of Two Major Perioperative Bleeding Scores for Cardiac Surgery Trials

Author:

Bartoszko Justyna1,Wijeysundera Duminda N.1,Karkouti Keyvan1,Callum Jeannie,Rao Vivek,Crowther Mark,Grocott Hilary P.,Pinto Ruxandra,Scales Damon C.,Achen Blaine,Brar Sukhpal,Morrison Doug,Wong David,Bussières Jean S.,de Waal Tonya,Harle Christopher,de Médicis Étienne,McAdams Charles,Syed Summer,Tran Diem,Waters Terry,

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Anesthesia and the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (J.B., D.N.W., K.K.); the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management and the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre (D.N.W., K.K.) and the Toronto General Research Institute (K.K.), Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and

Abstract

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Research into major bleeding during cardiac surgery is challenging due to variability in how it is scored. Two consensus-based clinical scores for major bleeding: the Universal definition of perioperative bleeding and the European Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (E-CABG) bleeding severity grade, were compared in this substudy of the Transfusion Avoidance in Cardiac Surgery (TACS) trial. Methods As part of TACS, 7,402 patients underwent cardiac surgery at 12 hospitals from 2014 to 2015. We examined content validity by comparing scored items, construct validity by examining associations with redo and complex procedures, and criterion validity by examining 28-day in-hospital mortality risk across bleeding severity categories. Hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed that incorporated important predictors and categories of bleeding. Results E-CABG and Universal scores were correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.78, P < 0.0001), but E-CABG classified 910 (12.4%) patients as having more severe bleeding, whereas the Universal score classified 1,729 (23.8%) as more severe. Higher E-CABG and Universal scores were observed in redo and complex procedures. Increasing E-CABG and Universal scores were associated with increased mortality in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Regression model discrimination based on predictors of perioperative mortality increased with additional inclusion of the Universal score (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.91) or E-CABG (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.92). When other major postoperative complications were added to these models, the association between Universal or E-CABG bleeding with mortality remained. Conclusions Although each offers different advantages, both the Universal score and E-CABG performed well in the validity assessments, supporting their use as outcome measures in clinical trials.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3