Demirdaş, ErtanAtılgan, KivançAltınay, LeventÇetin, ErdemEr, Zafer CengizÇiçekçioğglu, FeritBardakçı, Hasmet2024-09-292024-09-2920182146-4006https://doi.org/10.16919/bozoktip.422060https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/367755https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14619/10327Introduction: We aimed to compare the efficacy of three different well-known and commonly used mortalityrisk-scoring systems and to provide a more suitable scoring system for our patient population.Material-Method: A total of 2120 patients who had undergone a CABG operation in Türkiye Yüksek İhtisasHospital Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic between January 2003 – December 2004 included in this study. The inhospitaldeaths and the deaths in postoperative 30 days were accepted as mortality. The patients were dividedinto low, moderate and high-risk groups as the risk scoring systems prerequisites. The predicted mortalityrates by the risk scoring systems and the observed mortality rates were compared.Results: The observed mortality rates and the predicted mortality rates by EuroSCORE were similar betweenthe groups (p>0.05). The observed mortality rates of low and moderate risk groups were significantly lowerthan the predicted mortality rates with Parsonnet risk scoring system (p<0.001). In the high-risk group, theobserved mortality rates were not significantly different from the predicted mortality rates with the same riskscoring system (p>0.05). The predicted mortality rates with Ontario Province Risk (OPR) scoring system andobserved mortality rates in the low risk group were significantly different (p<0.001). In the moderate and highrisk groups, the observed mortality rates and predicted mortality rates with the OPR were not significantlydifferent (p>0.05).Conclusion: The EuroSCORE risk scoring system results were similar to the results in the literature. It is areliable way of risk prediction for the patients undergoing CABG surgery in our region.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArticle10.16919/bozoktip.422060983923677558