What is considered a high STS (Society of Thoracic Surgeons) risk score for a patient with acute coronary syndrome requiring Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG)?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 19, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

STS Risk Score Thresholds for High-Risk CABG in Acute Coronary Syndrome

An STS-predicted risk of operative mortality >5% is considered high risk for patients with acute coronary syndrome requiring CABG, while >2% represents an intermediate-to-high risk threshold that may favor PCI over CABG in selected patients.

Risk Stratification Framework

High-Risk Definition

  • STS score >5% defines high surgical risk in ACS patients, particularly when considering PCI as an alternative to CABG for unprotected left main disease 1
  • STS score >2% represents moderate-to-severe surgical risk and may favor PCI in patients with low-to-intermediate anatomic complexity (SYNTAX score <33) 1

Clinical Application in ACS

For patients with unprotected left main disease and ACS:

  • STS >5% with favorable anatomy (SYNTAX <22): PCI is reasonable as Class IIa recommendation 1
  • STS >2% with low-intermediate anatomy (SYNTAX <33): PCI may be reasonable as Class IIb recommendation 1
  • These thresholds specifically predict significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes 1

Calculation is recommended for all patients with unprotected left main or complex multivessel CAD to guide revascularization decisions 1

Risk Assessment Context

What STS Score Predicts

  • Primary outcomes: In-hospital or 30-day operative mortality 1
  • Secondary outcomes: In-hospital morbidity including stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, deep sternal infection, and reoperation 1
  • The score uses 40 variables to calculate risk 1

Performance in ACS Population

  • Both EuroSCORE II and STS score demonstrate excellent discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.879-0.900) in CABG patients 2
  • Predictive ability remains acceptable for 2-year postoperative mortality but decreases progressively thereafter 2
  • Despite higher baseline risk, early CABG in ACS patients shows very low in-hospital mortality (1.1%) when appropriately selected 3

Critical Decision Points

When CABG Remains Preferred Despite High STS Score

  • Three-vessel disease with diabetes: CABG superior to PCI regardless of STS score 1
  • Complex anatomy (SYNTAX >22): CABG preferred even with elevated surgical risk 1
  • Reduced LVEF (<40%): CABG reasonable with STS consideration secondary 1

When to Favor PCI Over CABG

  • Severe comorbidity not reflected in scores (advanced age/frailty, reduced life expectancy, restricted mobility) 1
  • Anatomical factors: poor quality conduits, severe chest deformation, sequelae of chest radiation, porcelain aorta 1
  • Clinical characteristics: moderate-severe COPD, disability from prior stroke, prior cardiac surgery 1

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Do not use STS score in isolation - it must be integrated with anatomic complexity (SYNTAX score) and clinical judgment through Heart Team discussion 1

Do not delay revascularization in very high-risk ACS presentations (hemodynamic instability, cardiogenic shock, life-threatening arrhythmias) while calculating risk scores 1

Do not assume high STS score mandates conservative therapy - appropriately selected ACS patients undergoing early CABG have lower mortality than those treated conservatively, even with higher baseline risk 3, 4

Recognize that 4.5% of ACS patients undergo CABG during index hospitalization with in-hospital mortality of 3.7%, comparable to non-CABG patients despite higher risk profiles 4

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.