4.7 Article

Development and validation of a simple risk score to predict the need for permanent pacing after cardiac valve surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 795-801

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02926-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The study objective was to develop and validate a simple risk score to predict postoperative permanent pacing (PPM) after valve surgery. BACKGROUND Our ability to identify patients preoperatively that will require PPM is poor. A simple preoperative risk score to predict PPM after valve surgery could assist both clinical practice and research. METHODS All valve surgery patients at our institution from 1992 to 2002 were included (n = 4,694). Two-thirds of the patients were randomly selected to form a risk score prediction group (PG), and the score was then applied to the remaining patients (validation group [VG]). RESULTS Preoperative right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 5.7) and multivalve surgery that included the tricuspid valve (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3 to 6.1) were the strongest independent predictors of PPM, while multivalve surgery that did not include the tricuspid valve (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3), preoperative left bundle branch block (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.9), preoperative PR interval >200 ms (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0), prior valve surgery (OR, 1.8, 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.7), and age >70 years (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.0) also predicted PPM. A risk score from 0 to 6 identified patients in the VG with incidences of PPM,of 1.9%, 5.2%, 8.7%, 11.5%, 21%, 36%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS A simple risk score incorporating preoperative conduction, age, prior valve surgery, and surgery type predicts PPM after valve surgery. This score may be useful in the perioperative management of valve surgery patients. (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available