Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 683

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery: The Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA)

Open access
Poldermans, Don, Bax, Jeroen J, Boersma, Eric, De Hert, Stefan, Eeckhout, Erik, Fowkes, Gerry, Gorenek, Bulent, Hennerici, Michael G, Iung, Bernard, Kelm, Malte, Kjeldsen, Keld Per, Kristensen, Steen Dalby, Lopez-Sendon, Jose, Pelosi, Paolo, Philippe, François, Pierard, Luc, Ponikowski, Piotr, Schmid, Jean-Paul, Sellevold, Olav FM, Sicari, Rosa, Van den Berghe, Greet, Vermassen, Frank·2010·European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Abstract

ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Alec Vahanian (Chairperson) (France), Angelo Auricchio (Switzerland), Jeroen J. Bax (The Netherlands), Claudio Ceconi (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Christian Funck-Brentano (France), Richard Hobbs (UK), Peter Kearney (Ireland), Theresa McDonagh (UK), Keith McGregor (France), Bogdan A. Popescu (Romania), Zeljko Reiner (Croatia), Udo Sechtem (Germany), Per Anton Sirnes (Norway), Michal Tendera (Poland), Panos Vardas (Greece), Petr Widimsky (Czech Republic) Document Reviewers: Raffaele De Caterina (CPG Review Coordinator) (Italy), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Nawwar Al Attar (France), Felicita Andreotti (Italy), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Gonzalo Baron-Esquivias (Spain), Guy Berkenboom (Belgium), Laurent Chapoutot (France), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), Pompilio Faggiano (Italy), Simon Gibbs (UK), Henrik Steen Hansen (Denmark), Laurence Iserin (France), Carsten W. Israel (Germany), Ran Kornowski (Israel), Nekane Murga Eizagaechevarria (Spain), Mauro Pepi (Italy), Massimo Piepoli (Italy), Hans Joachim Priebe (Germany), Martin Scherer (Germany), Janina Stepinska (Poland), David Taggart (UK), Marco Tubaro (Italy)Table 1Table 2Preamble Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present management and recommendations based on the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient with a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome but also the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.1 A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and also by other organizations or related societies. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC website in the guidelines section (www.escardio.org). In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighted and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2.Table 1: Classes of recommendationsTable 2: Level of evidenceThe experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified to the ESC. The Task Force report is entirely supported financially by the ESC without any involvement of industry. The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement process of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. The document is revised, and finally approved by the CPG and subsequently published. After publication, dissemination of the message is of paramount importance. Pocketsize versions and personal digital assistant (PDA)-downloadable versions are useful at the point of care. Some surveys have shown that the intended end-users are sometimes not aware of the existence of guidelines, or simply do not translate them into practice, so this is why implementation programmes for new guidelines form an important component of the dissemination of knowledge. Meetings are organized by the ESC, and are directed towards its member National Societies and key opinion leaders in Europe. Implementation meetings can also be undertaken at national levels, once the guidelines have been endorsed by the ESC member societies, and translated into the national language. Implementation programmes are needed because it has been shown that the outcome of disease may be favourably influenced by the thorough application of clinical recommendations.2 Thus, the task of writing Guidelines or Expert Consensus Documents covers not only the integration of the m

Overview

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 · 10.1097/eja.0b013e328334c017

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 683

Metadata

Authors
Poldermans, D., Bax, J. J., Boersma, E., De Hert, S., Eeckhout, E., Fowkes, G., Gorenek, B., Hennerici, M. G., Iung, B., Kelm, M., Kjeldsen, K. P., Kristensen, S. D., Lopez-Sendon, J., Pelosi, P., Philippe, F., Pierard, L., Ponikowski, P., Schmid, J.-P., Sellevold, O. F., Sicari, R., Van den Berghe, G., & Vermassen, F.
Venue
European Journal of Anaesthesiology
Published
2010-02
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
92-137
ISSN
0265-0215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103553040
Cited by
683
References
9
FWCI
57.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery: The Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/eja.0b013e328334c017
The paper
Poldermans, D., Bax, J. J., Boersma, E., De Hert, S., Eeckhout, E., Fowkes, G., Gorenek, B., Hennerici, M. G., Iung, B., Kelm, M., Kjeldsen, K. P., Kristensen, S. D., Lopez-Sendon, J., Pelosi, P., Philippe, F., Pierard, L., Ponikowski, P., Schmid, J.-P., Sellevold, O. F., . . . Vermassen, F. (2010). Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery: The Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). European Journal of Anaesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0b013e328334c017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.