Cited by 154Cardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Dynamic trends in cardiac surgery: why the logistic EuroSCORE is no longer suitable for contemporary cardiac surgery and implications for future risk models

Open access
Hickey, G. L., Grant, S. W., Murphy, G. J., Bhabra, M., Pagano, D., McAllister, K., Buchan, I., Bridgewater, B.·2013·European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Progressive loss of calibration of the original EuroSCORE models has necessitated the introduction of the EuroSCORE II model. Poor model calibration has important implications for clinical decision-making and risk adjustment of governance analyses. The objective of this study was to explore the reasons for the calibration drift of the logistic EuroSCORE. METHODS: Data from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland database were analysed for procedures performed at all National Health Service and some private hospitals in England and Wales between April 2001 and March 2011. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. EuroSCORE risk factors, overall model calibration and discrimination were assessed over time. RESULTS: A total of 317 292 procedures were included. Over the study period, mean age at surgery increased from 64.6 to 67.2 years. The proportion of procedures that were isolated coronary artery bypass grafts decreased from 67.5 to 51.2%. In-hospital mortality fell from 4.1 to 2.8%, but the mean logistic EuroSCORE increased from 5.6 to 7.6%. The logistic EuroSCORE remained a good discriminant throughout the study period (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve between 0.79 and 0.85), but calibration (observed-to-expected mortality ratio) fell from 0.76 to 0.37. Inadequate adjustment for decreasing baseline risk affected calibration considerably. DISCUSSIONS: Patient risk factors and case-mix in adult cardiac surgery change dynamically over time. Models like the EuroSCORE that are developed using a 'snapshot' of data in time do not account for this and can subsequently lose calibration. It is therefore important to regularly revalidate clinical prediction models.

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/ezs584

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Data drift can cause models' performance to deteriorate or behave in unexpected ways.

    “Data drift, defined as the systematic shift in the underlying distribution of input features 11 , can cause models' performance to deteriorate [11][12][13] or behave in unexpected ways, which can pose a threat to the safety of patients.”

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: 2

  1. [12]Bridgewater B, Keogh B, Kinsman R, Walton P. Henley-on-Thames: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd.; 2009. Sixth National Adult Cardiac Surgical Database Report. [Google Scholar]
  2. [19]Ludman PF. Leeds, UK: The NHS Information Centre; 2011. National Audit of Angioplasty Procedures 2010-Procedures Performed between 1st January and 31st December 2009. Report No. IC03020111. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hickey, G. L., Grant, S. W., Murphy, G. J., Bhabra, M., Pagano, D., McAllister, K., Buchan, I., & Bridgewater, B.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • Bristol Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • New Cross Hospital (GB)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Bridgewater, B.
Venue
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Published
2012-11-14
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1146-1152
ISSN
  • 1010-7940 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-734X
OpenAlex
W2164862771
Cited by
154
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/K006665/1, MC_PC_13042)
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
logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, in-hospital mortality, coronary artery bypass grafting, risk adjustment
MeSH terms
Calibration, Europe, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Humans, Prospective Studies, Risk, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment

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