Background/aim: Clinical risk models are commonly used to predict short-term coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) mortality but are less commonly used to predict long-term mortality. The added value of long-term mortality clinical risk models over traditional actuarial models has not been evaluated. To address this, the predictive performance of a long-term clinical risk model was compared with that of an actuarial model to identify the clinical variable(s) most responsible for any differences observed.
Methods: Long-term mortality for 1028 CABG patients was estimated using the Hannan New York State clinical risk model and an actuarial model (based on age, gender, and race/ethnicity). Vital status was assessed using the Social Security Death Index. Observed/expected (O/E) ratios were calculated, and the models' predictive performances were compared using a nested c-index approach. Linear regression analyses identified the subgroup of risk factors driving the differences observed.
Results: Mortality rates were 3%, 9%, and 17% at one-, three-, and five years, respectively (median follow-up: five years). The clinical risk model provided more accurate predictions. Greater divergence between model estimates occurred with increasing long-term mortality risk, with baseline renal dysfunction identified as a particularly important driver of these differences.
Conclusions: Long-term mortality clinical risk models provide enhanced predictive power compared to actuarial models. Using the Hannan risk model, a patient's long-term mortality risk can be accurately assessed and subgroups of higher-risk patients can be identified for enhanced follow-up care. More research appears warranted to refine long-term CABG clinical risk models.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4738429 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.12665 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!