ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2026
Risk Stratification for Postoperative Mortality in Cardiac Surgery: "Quo Vadis"?
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk assessment for immediate mortality is a vital component of the preoperative assessment in elective cardiac surgeries of the adult population. It is generally used to inform consent and plan postoperative care, but can also help identify patients who need preoperative optimization. Risk assessment for open cardiac interventions remains difficult, as an absolute risk assessment tool is still lacking. In this narrative review, we examine recent data on the predictive performance of commonly used risk assessment tools in cardiac surgery and explore missed opportunities to improve predictive performance, including overlooked independent predictors and alternative calculation strategies, such as machine learning. The literature shows that the most popular risk assessment tools are the Parsonnet score, EuroSCORE II, STS-PROM, and ACEF. These have reasonable discriminative capabilities across most populations but occasionally suffer from poor calibration and over- or underprediction. Preoperative inflammation, functional status, physical performance, nutrition, and frailty are potentially relevant clinical factors that could improve mortality prediction modeling using traditional approaches. By far, the largest advancement comes from artificial intelligence-based models that demonstrate superior predictive capabilities utilizing the same predictors. These models are still in development, have not received external validation, are not yet trusted by physicians, and may not be accessible to all institutions due to computing limitations, and thus are not ready for global rollout. Further research in identifying novel predictors of mortality is required, and efforts are needed to validate machine learning models in external cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.