RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Three Risk Scores For Mortality Prediction In Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.06.03.20120949 DO 10.1101/2020.06.03.20120949 A1 R. Margaryan A1 G. Bianchi A1 G. Concistre A1 T. Gasbarri A1 E. Kallushi A1 P. Farneti A1 M. Solinas YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/05/2020.06.03.20120949.abstract AB Objective The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score performance relative to other scores in minimally invasive cardiac surgery is not known.Methods Patients who underwent surgery from 2003 to 2018 identified from database. Additional variables included for STS score calculation, EuroSCORE II and age, creatinine and ejection fraction score calculation.Results A total of 4751 patients were identified from main database. There were actual 47 (0.99%) hospitals deaths. The mean STS score predicted mortality were 2.0 ± 2.1. Discriminatory power was uniformly good (for STS Mortality: area under curve, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 - 0.91). The mean EuroSCORE II predicted mortality were 2.9 ± 3.8. Discriminatory power was uniformly good similar to that of STS (for EuroSCORE II Mortality: area under curve, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 - 0.93). The mean ACEF predicted mortality were 2.5 ± 2.3. Discriminatory power was uniformly good but inferior to that of STS and EuroSCORE II (for ACEF Mortality: area under curve, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 - 0.8).Calibration pattern for STS score was the best for of mortality prediction (p < 0.01), EuroSCORE II and ACEF were constantly overestimating mortality (respectively, p < 0.01 and p < 0.01). scores.Conclusions The STS score has acceptable discrimination power for this sub-population. However, it is not calibrated for the the subset. EuroSCORE II is has good discrimination power, but not calibrate for the this subset of patients. ACEF score had similar performance to EuroSCORE. No algorithm seems suitable for accurate risk estimation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding involvedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Local ethical comity approval has be obtained.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be de-identified a will be made available after publication