Cited by 2,971Cardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

EuroSCORE II

Open access
Nashef, S. A. M., Roques, F., Sharples, L. D., Nilsson, J., Smith, C., Goldstone, A. R., Lockowandt, U.·2012·European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To update the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) risk model. METHODS: A dedicated website collected prospective risk and outcome data on 22,381 consecutive patients undergoing major cardiac surgery in 154 hospitals in 43 countries over a 12-week period (May-July 2010). Completeness and accuracy were validated during data collection using mandatory field entry, error and range checks and after data collection using summary feedback confirmation by responsible officers and multiple logic checks. Information was obtained on existing EuroSCORE risk factors and additional factors proven to influence risk from research conducted since the original model. The primary outcome was mortality at the base hospital. Secondary outcomes were mortality at 30 and 90 days. The data set was divided into a developmental subset for logistic regression modelling and a validation subset for model testing. A logistic risk model (EuroSCORE II) was then constructed and tested. RESULTS: Compared with the original 1995 EuroSCORE database (in brackets), the mean age was up at 64.7 (62.5) with 31% females (28%). More patients had New York Heart Association class IV, extracardiac arteriopathy, renal and pulmonary dysfunction. Overall mortality was 3.9% (4.6%). When applied to the current data, the old risk models overpredicted mortality (actual: 3.9%; additive predicted: 5.8%; logistic predicted: 7.57%). EuroSCORE II was well calibrated on testing in the validation data subset of 5553 patients (actual mortality: 4.18%; predicted: 3.95%). Very good discrimination was maintained with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8095. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgical mortality has significantly reduced in the last 15 years despite older and sicker patients. EuroSCORE II is better calibrated than the original model yet preserves powerful discrimination. It is proposed for the future assessment of cardiac surgical risk.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ejcts/ezs043

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone A, Nashef SAM. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J 2003;24:881-2.
  2. Van Gameren M, Klieverik LM, Struijs A, Venema AC, Kappetein AP, Bogers AJ et al. Impact of the definition of renal dysfunction on EuroSCORE performance. J Cardiovasc Surg 2009;50:703-9.
  3. Cuthbertson BH, Croal BL, Rae D, Gibson PH, McNeilly JD, Jeffrey RR et al. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels and early outcome after cardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study. Br J Anaesth 2009;3:647-53.
  4. APPENDIX. CONFERENCE DISCUSSION Dr J. Takkenberg (Rotterdam, The Netherlands): The new EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, has good calibration and excellent discrimination with an area

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nashef, S. A. M., Roques, F., Sharples, L. D., Nilsson, J., Smith, C., Goldstone, A. R., & Lockowandt, U.
Affiliations
  • Royal Papworth Hospital (GB)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Martinique (MQ)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • Skåne University Hospital (SE)
  • Castle Hill Hospital (GB)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Nashef, S. A. M.
Venue
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Published
2012-02-29
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
734-745
ISSN
  • 1010-7940 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-734X
OpenAlex
W1702536112
Cited by
2,971
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 261 · 2025: 299 · 2024: 261 · 2023: 295 · 2022: 280 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 243 · 2019: 177 · 2018: 153 · 2017: 159 · 2016: 144 · 2015: 139 · 2014: 144 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 38
FWCI
86.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Keywords
EuroSCORE II, cardiac surgery mortality, preoperative risk assessment, risk prediction model, model calibration, model discrimination, risk factors, mortality prediction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Calibration, Female, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Terminology as Topic, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Databases, Factual, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review