ABSTRACT Introduction: There is a lack of information about cardiac surgery training and professional practice in Latin American (LATAM) countries. This study is the first comparative analysis of cardiac surgical training and professional practice across LATAM and provides the fundamentals for future academic projects of the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES). Methods: International survey-based comparative analysis of the training and professional practice of cardiac surgeons across LATAM. Trainees (residents/fellows) and staf (graduated) surgeons from LATAM countries were included. Results: A total of 289 respondents (staf surgeons N=221 [76.5%]; residents/fellows N=68 [23.5%]) from 18 different countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (N=92 [45.3%]) reported being unsatisfied with their salaries. Most respondents (N=181 [62.6%]) stated that it was difficult to obtain a leadership position, and 149 (73.8%) stated that it was difficult to find a job after completing training. Only half of the trainee respondents (N=32 [47.1%]) reported that their program had all resident spots occupied. Only 22.1% (N=15) of residents/fellows were satisfied with their training programs. The majority (N=205 [70.9%]) of respondents would choose cardiac surgery as their specialty again. Most surgeons (N=129 [63.9%]) and residents/fellows (N=52 [76.5%]) indicated that the establishment of a LATAM cardiac surgery board examination would be beneficial. Conclusion: Modernization and standardization of training, as well as greater access to opportunities, may be required in LATAM to increase professional satisfaction of cardiac surgeons and to reduce disparities in the specialty. Such changes may enhance the regional response to the dynamic challenges in the feld.

ABSTRACT Background: The ArgenSCORE I was developed in 1999 on a population with 8% mortality. The ArgenSCORE II emerged after recalibrating the original model in 2007 on a validation population with 4% mortality. Using the CONAREC XVI registry, we evaluated the hypothesis that the ArgenSCORE II could better predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in centers with low mortality, whereas the ArgenSCORE I could better predict mortality in centers with high mortality. Methods: A total of 2548 patients from 44 centers of the prospective and multicenter cardiac surgery CONAREC XVI registry, were analyzed. Mean observed mortality (OM) and mean expected mortality (EM) were estimated applying both versions of the ArgenSCORE. The OM/EM ratio was calculated in each center for both models and the Z test was used to evaluate significant differences. Results: In-hospital mortality was 7.69% for the entire registry. In 75% of the centers (33/44) mortality was >6%. In centers with mortality <6%, the OM/EM ratio was close to 1 after applying the ArgenSCORE II, without significant differences. In centers with mortality >6%, the ArgenSCORE II significantly underestimated the risk. On the contrary, when the ArgenSCORE I was applied in these centers, the OM/EM ratio was close to 1, without significant differences. Conclusions: The recalibrated ArgenSCORE II is recommended in centers with mortality <6%, while in those with mortality >6% the original ArgenSCORE I has better performance.

RESUMEN Introducción: El ArgenSCORE tiene una versión original (I) desarrollada en 1999 sobre una población con mortalidad del 8% y una versión II (recalibración del modelo en 2007) sobre una población con una mortalidad del 4%. Evaluamos en el registro CONAREC XVI la hipótesis de que el ArgenSCORE II podría estimar mejor el riesgo de mortalidad intrahospitalaria en los centros con baja mortalidad; en cambio, el ArgenSCORE I estimaría mejor la mortalidad en los centros con alta mortalidad. Material y métodos: Se analizaron 2548 pacientes de 44 centros del registro prospectivo y multicéntrico en cirugía cardíaca, CONAREC XVI. En cada centro se evaluó la mortalidad media observada (MO) y se calculó la mortalidad estimada media (ME) aplicando ambas versiones del ArgenSCORE. Se calculó la relación MO/ME de cada centro para los dos modelos y se evaluó si había diferencias significativas mediante el test Z. Resultados: La mortalidad intrahospitalaria del registro fue del 7,69%. El 75% de los centros (33/44) presentaban una mortalidad mayor del 6%. En centros con mortalidad menor del 6%, al aplicar el ArgenSCORE II, la relación MO/ME mostró valores cercanos a 1 y sin diferencias significativas. En centros con mortalidad mayor del 6%, el ArgenSCORE II subestima significativamente el riesgo. En cambio, cuando se aplica en estos centros el ArgenSCORE I, la relación MO/ME es cercana a 1 (sin diferencias significativas). Conclusiones: En centros con mortalidad menor del 6%, es recomendable utilizar el ArgenSCORE II-recalibrado; en centros con mortalidad mayor del 6%, tiene mejor desempeño el ArgenSCORE I-original.

Introduction In patients with aortic stenosis and planned aortic valve replacement, an accurate stratification of surgical risk is mandatory to offer the best individual option. Preoperative risk scores have recovered a leading role in the assessment of these patients. Objectives The aim of this study was to perform a prospective, multicentric validation of the ArgenSCORE and compare its performance with the EuroSCORE I and the EuroSCORE II. Methods A total of 250 adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement at four centers of the City of Buenos Aires were included in the study from February 2008 to December 2012. The ArgenSCORE was compared with the EuroSCORE I and the EuroSCORE II, evaluating model discrimination with the area under the ROC curve and calibration comparing the relation between observed mortality and predicted mortality. Results The mean age of the validation population (n = 250) was 68.62 ± 13.3 years and overall mortality of 3.6%. The ArgenSCORE showed good discrimination power (area under the ROC curve of 0.82) and a good predictive capacity to allocate risk (relation between observed mortality: 3.6% vs. predicted mortality: 3.39%; p = 0.471). The EuroSCORE I showed poor discrimination power (area under the ROC curve of 0.62) and risk overestimation (relation between observed mortality: 3.6% vs. predicted mortality: 5.58%; p < 0.0001). The EuroSCORE II showed an acceptable discrimination power (area under the ROC curve of 0.76), though lower than that of the ArgenSCORE, but a significant underestimation of predicted risk (relation between observed mortality: 3.6% vs. predicted mortality: 1.64%; p < 0.0001). Conclusions The ArgenSCORE evidenced adequate ability to predict mortality in patients undergoing AVR surgery. This local model demonstrated good discrimination power and better calibration compared to the European models, as the EuroSCORE I overestimated and the EuroSCORE II underestimated predicted risk.

Introducción En pacientes con estenosis aórtica e indicación de reemplazo valvular resulta imprescindible una estratificación correcta del riesgo operatorio para ofrecer la mejor opción posible en cada caso. Los modelos de riesgo preoperatorio han recobrado un papel protagónico en la evaluación de estos pacientes. Objetivos Validar el ArgenSCORE en forma prospectiva y multicéntrica en pacientes con reemplazo valvular aórtico y comparar su rendimiento con el EuroSCORE I y el EuroSCORE II. Material y métodos Se incluyeron 250 pacientes consecutivos con reemplazo valvular aórtico en cuatro centros de Buenos Aires desde febrero de 2008 hasta diciembre de 2012. Se comparó el rendimiento del ArgenSCORE, del EuroSCORE I y del EuroSCORE II mediante la evaluación de la discriminación a través del cálculo del área bajo la curva ROC y del poder de calibración comparando la relación entre mortalidad observada y mortalidad predicha. Resultados La edad media de la población de validación (n = 250) fue de 68,62 ± 13,3 años y la mortalidad global fue del 3,6%. El ArgenSCORE mostró buen poder de discriminación (curva ROC 0,82) y buena capacidad para asignar riesgo (relación mortalidad observada 3,6% vs. mortalidad predicha 3,39%; p = 0,471). El EuroSCORE I mostró bajo poder de discriminación (curva ROC 0,62) y además sobrevaloró el riesgo estimado (relación mortalidad observada 3,6% vs. mortalidad predicha 5,58%; p < 0,0001). El EuroSCORE II mostró una aceptable capacidad de discriminación (curva ROC 0,76), aunque menor que la del ArgenSCORE, pero evidenció una subvaloración significativa del riesgo estimado (relación mortalidad observada 3,6% vs. mortalidad predicha 1,64%; p < 0,0001). Conclusiones El ArgenSCORE demostró que posee un rendimiento excelente en pacientes con reemplazo valvular aórtico. Este modelo local mostró buen poder de discriminación y mejor calibración en comparación con los modelos europeos, ya que el riesgo estimado fue sobrevalorado por el EuroSCORE I y subvalorado por el EuroSCORE II.

Background During the last decades, several risk assessment models have been applied to predict the risk of mortality after cardiac surgery; however, none of them have been developed in Latin American populations. These models have inferior performance when applied to patient groups other than the ones on whom they were developed. Objectives To perform external and temporal validation of a local risk score for cardiac surgery [Argentinean System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (ArgenSCORE)] and compare it to the EuroSCORE. Material and Methods A total of 5268 consecutive adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery were included from June 1994 to December 2009. The risk model was developed through logistic regression on the data of 2903 patients who underwent cardiac surgery between June 1994 and December 1999 at a center. Prospective internal validation was performed on 708 patients between January 2000 and June 2001. External and temporal validation of the recalibrated model were performed between February 2000 and December 2009, evaluating model discrimination and calibration in patients operated on at four centers different from the one where the score had been originally developed. The method was also compared to the EuroSCORE. Results The external validation was performed on 1657 patients, mean age was 62.8±13.3 years and global mortality was 4.58%. The ArgenSCORE showed both good discriminatory power with an area under the ROC curve of 0.80 and predictive capacity for risk assessment in all patients (observed mortality 4.58% vs. expected mortality 4.54%; p=0.842). The EuroSCORE showed good discriminatory power (area under the ROC curve of 0.79) but overestimated the risk (observed mortality 4.58% vs. expected mortality 5.23%; p <0.0001). Conclusions The ArgenSCORE showed an adequate capacity to predict in-hospital mortality in cardiac surgery 10 years after being developed. The score can be applied to populations with similar geographic characteristics, showing a better performance compared to an established international risk stratification model.

Introducción En las últimas décadas se han aplicado diversos modelos de riesgo para predecir mortalidad en cirugía cardíaca, pero ninguno de estos sistemas de evaluación fue desarrollado en poblaciones de América Latina. Estos modelos presentan un rendimiento menor cuando son aplicados en poblaciones diferentes de aquellas en las que fueron desarrollados. Objetivos Validar un modelo de riesgo local de mortalidad intrahospitalaria en cirugía cardíaca [Argentinean System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (ArgenSCORE)] en forma externa y temporal y compararlo con el EuroSCORE. Material y métodos Se incluyeron 5.268 pacientes adultos, consecutivos, intervenidos quirúrgicamente desde junio de 1994 hasta diciembre de 2009. El modelo fue desarrollado mediante regresión logística en 2.903 pacientes intervenidos en un centro desde junio de 1994 hasta diciembre de 1999. Se realizó validación interna prospectiva desde enero de 2000 hasta junio de 2001 en 708 pacientes. Desde febrero de 2000 hasta diciembre de 2009 se validó en forma externa y temporal el modelo recalibrado evaluando su discriminación y calibración en pacientes operados en cuatro centros diferentes del de su desarrollo y se comparó su rendimiento con el EuroSCORE. Resultados La población de validación externa incluyó 1.657 pacientes, con una edad media de 62,8 ± 13,3 años y una mortalidad global del 4,58%. El ArgenSCORE mostró un buen poder de discriminación (curva ROC: 0,80) y buena capacidad para asignar riesgo en todos los pacientes (relación mortalidad observada: 4,58% vs. mortalidad predicha: 4,54%; p = 0,842). El EuroSCORE mostró un buen poder discriminativo (curva ROC: 0,79), pero sobrevaloró el riesgo estimado (relación mortalidad observada: 4,58% vs. mortalidad predicha: 5,23%; p < 0,0001). Conclusiones El ArgenSCORE mostró una capacidad adecuada para predecir mortalidad intrahospitalaria en cirugía cardíaca a 10 años de su desarrollo. Su aplicación en poblaciones con características geográficas similares a las de aquellas donde fue desarrollado muestra un rendimiento mejor en comparación con un puntaje internacional ya consolidado y de uso global.