Clinical Utility and Limitations of Traditional Risk Scores (EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and STS-PROM) in Patients Undergoing TAVI: A Narrative Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

The rapid evolution of structural heart interventions, particularly transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER), and hybrid procedures, has significantly expanded treatment options for elderly, frail, and multimorbid patients previously considered high risk or inoperable. However, perioperative risk stratification in this population remains challenging. Traditional risk scores such as EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, STS-PROM, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED were developed and validated primarily in cohorts undergoing conventional open-heart surgery (CABG and surgical valve replacement) more than 15–25 years ago. This narrative review critically evaluates the performance and limitations of these classical models in contemporary populations undergoing modern structural cardiac interventions. Evidence from registries and meta-analyses indicates only moderate discriminatory ability and systematic calibration errors. EuroSCORE II and STS-PROM frequently overestimate risk in low- and intermediate-risk patients while underestimating it in high-risk and frail individuals, particularly regarding neurological, renal complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Similar limitations apply to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED when used beyond their original scope in the peri-procedural setting of TAVI/TEER. The review highlights the growing role of frailty assessment, procedure-specific variables, and machine learning algorithms, which demonstrate superior predictive performance compared to conventional scores. Until dedicated, regularly updated risk models based on large TAVI/TEER registries become available, traditional scores should be used only as supportive tools within multidisciplinary Heart Team discussions that incorporate individual frailty, quality of life, and patient preferences.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.