The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) has been used for many years since its introduction in 1999. Recently, a new EuroSCORE (EuroSCORE II) has been developed to update the previous version. The EuroSCORE II includes some different predictors and/or introduces a new classification of the already existing predictors. This study presents a validation series for the EuroSCORE II compared with the previous additive and the logistic EuroSCORE and with the Age, Creatinine and Ejection Fraction (ACEF) score. A total of 1090 consecutive adult patients operated on at our institution from September 2010 to October 2011 were admitted to this retrospective study. All the patients received a risk stratification based on the EuroSCORE II and the other scores considered. Accuracy, calibration and clinical performance of the various risk models were assessed. The accuracy of the EuroSCORE II was good (c-statistic 0.81) but not significantly higher than the other scores (range 0.78–0.8). Calibration at the Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic was good for all the scores; the difference between observed (3.75%) and predicted mortality in the overall population was not significant for the EuroSCORE II (3.1%) and the ACEF score (3.4%), whereas the additive EuroSCORE (5.8%) and the logistic EuroSCORE (7.3%) significantly overestimated the risk. In patients at low, mild moderate and high mortality risk, the EuroSCORE II provided a risk prediction not significantly different from the observed mortality rate, whereas in very high-risk patients (observed mortality rate 11%), it significantly underestimated (6.5%) the mortality risk. The accuracy of the EuroSCORE II was acceptable in isolated coronary surgery, and good or excellent in the other operations. The EuroSCORE II represents a useful update of the previous EuroSCORE version, with a much better clinical performance and the same good level of accuracy. It is possible that for the risk stratification of very high-risk patients, other factors (rare but associated with a mortality rate >50%) should be included in the future models.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated coagulopathy is characterized by a prothrombotic state not yet comprehensively studied. We investigated the coagulation pattern of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), comparing patients who survived to those who did not. Methods: In this prospective cohort study on 20 COVID-19 ARDS patients, the following biomarkers were measured: thrombin generation (prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (PF 1 + 2)), fibrinolysis activation (tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)) and inhibition (plasminogen activator inhibitor 2 (PAI-2)), fibrin synthesis (fibrinopeptide A) and fibrinolysis magnitude (plasmin–antiplasmin complex (PAP) and D-dimers). Measurements were done upon intensive care unit (ICU) admission and after 10–14 days. Results: There was increased thrombin generation; modest or null release of t-PA; and increased levels of PAI-2, fibrinopeptide A, PAP and D-dimers. At baseline, nonsurvivors had a significantly (p = 0.014) higher PAI-2/PAP ratio than survivors (109, interquartile range (IQR) 18.1–216, vs. 8.7, IQR 2.9–12.6). At follow-up, thrombin generation was significantly (p = 0.025) reduced in survivors (PF 1 + 2 from 396 pg/mL, IQR 185–585 to 237 pg/mL, IQR 120–393), whereas it increased in nonsurvivors. Fibrinolysis inhibition at follow-up remained stable in survivors and increased in nonsurvivors, leading to a significant (p = 0.026) difference in PAI-2 levels (161 pg/mL, IQR 50–334, vs. 1088 pg/mL, IQR 177–1565). Conclusion: Severe patterns of COVID-19 ARDS are characterized by a thrombin burst and the consequent coagulation activation. Mechanisms of fibrinolysis regulation appear unbalanced toward fibrinolysis inhibition. This pattern ameliorates in survivors, whereas it worsens in nonsurvivors.

Background: Hospital mortality and admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are markers of disease severity in COVID-19 patients. Cardiovascular co-morbidities are one of the main determinants of negative outcomes. In this study we investigated the impact of cardiovascular co-morbidities on mortality and admission to the ICU in first-wave COVID-19 patients. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. A total of 1077 patients were analyzed for mortality and ICU admission. Cardiovascular risk factors were explored as determinants of the outcomes after correction for other confounders. Results: In the multivariable model, after correction for age, only a history of heart failure remained independently associated (p = 0.0013) with mortality (hazard ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 3.62). Age showed a mortality risk increase of 8% per year (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.10, p = 0.001). The transition from ward to the ICU had, as a single determinant, the age, but in a reversed fashion (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.98, p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Once adjusted for the main determinant of mortality (age) heart failure only remained independently associated with mortality. Admission to the ICU was less likely for elderly patients. This may reflect the catastrophic impact of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in terms of ICU bed availability in Lombardy, leading to a selection process for ICU admission.