Abstract
Open in a new tab
OBJECTIVES
The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) is the most common tool used to evaluate the perioperative risk of mortality after cardiac surgery in Europe, and its use is currently recommended by the relevant guidelines. However, recently, its role has been questioned: Several papers have suggested that these algorithms may no longer be adequate for risk prediction due to an overestimation of adult cardiac surgical risk. Our goal was to validate the EuroSCORE II in the prediction of 30-day in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery in a high-volume hospital.
METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, we included all patients who underwent cardiac surgery from January 2016 to May 2022 within the departments of cardiac surgery of the Monzino Cardiology Centre in Milan, Italy. We evaluated the discrimination power of the EuroSCORE II by using the receiver operating characteristic curve and the corresponding area under the curve. We performed calibration plots to assess the concordance between the model’s prediction and the observed outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 4,034 patients were included (mean age = 65.1 years; 68% males), of which 674 (16.7%) underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. The EuroSCORE II showed a good discrimination power in predicting 30-day in-hospital mortality (area under the curve = 0.834). However, for interventions performed in an elective setting, very low values of the EuroSCORE II overestimated the observed mortality, whereas for interventions performed in an emergency setting, EuroSCORE II values above 10 extensively underestimated the observed mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that the EuroSCORE II seems not to be a reliable score in estimating the true risk of death, especially in high-risk patients.
Keywords: EuroSCORE II, cardiac surgery, post-operative mortality, validation study
The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) is the most common tool used to evaluate the perioperative risk of mortality after cardiac surgery in Europe [1]; indeed, its use is currently recommended by the relevant guidelines [2].
INTRODUCTION
The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) is the most common tool used to evaluate the perioperative risk of mortality after cardiac surgery in Europe [1]; indeed, its use is currently recommended by the relevant guidelines [2]. The EuroSCORE II was first published in 2012. Since that time it has been widely used worldwide to predict 30-day mortality in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. This score was developed by analysing a cohort of more than 22,000 patients who underwent open cardiac surgery in almost 150 hospitals in 43 countries over a 12-week period (May–July 2010) [1]. Several studies confirmed the good performance of the EuroSCORE II in predicting 30-day mortality in patients who underwent major cardiac surgery [3–5]. Due to the composition of the type of surgical interventions performed on the original EuroSCORE II population, mainly coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), it has up to now shown optimal calibration and discrimination power in isolated CABG [6]. However, recently, its role has been questioned because some evidence has suggested that these algorithms may no longer be adequate for risk prediction due to an overestimation of the adult cardiac surgical risk. Indeed, several studies have shown discrepancies between predicted and observed mortality, particularly in elderly and mid- to high-risk patients [7–9], as well as in valvular surgical subgroups [10–11]. In this study, our goal was to validate the performance of the EuroSCORE II in the prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery (valve, CABG and ascending aorta) in a high-volume hospital in Italy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ethics statement
The institutional review board approved the use of the data set for research. The institutional ethical committee approved the study (R 1739/22- CCM 1858), and the requirement for informed written consent was waived on the condition that subjects’ identities were masked.
Data source and study population
In this retrospective cohort study, we included all the 4,034 patients who underwent cardiac surgery in a 5-year period (January 2016–May 2022) within the department of cardiac surgery of the Monzino Cardiology Centre in Milan, Italy. Patients who had transcatheter/percutaneous valve implants, tumours, congenital heart disease and isolated tricuspid valve surgical procedures were excluded from the study group, because they were not considered in the development of the EuroSCORE II algorithm. Preoperative and demographic information, operative data, perioperative mortality and complications for each included patient were retrieved from the institutional databases of the Monzino Cardiology Centre, which systematically collects data on all patients. Moreover, the calculation of the EuroSCORE II for each patient was made possible by using the information recorded in the hospital databases.
Outcome
The outcome of interest is the in-hospital mortality that occurred within 30 days from the date of the operation.
Sample size
Accepting a type I error of 5% and a type II error of 20% and assuming a mortality rate equal to 3.5%, a total 4,034 patients yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 with a 95% confidence interval from 0.76 to 0.84.
Statistical analyses
We used the standardized differences for comparing baseline characteristics of the study cohort and the EuroSCORE population. The normality distribution of the data was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. According to Austin [12], standardized differences <0.10 were considered negligible. We evaluated the discrimination power of the EuroSCORE by using the receiver operating characteristic curve and the corresponding AUC [13]. We performed calibration plots to assess the concordance between the model’s prediction and the observed outcomes. Predicted versus observed in-hospital mortality probabilities were displayed in a calibration plot. Ideally, the plot should follow a 45-degree line, showing that the predicted risks are equal to the observed outcome frequencies [14]. Analyses were stratified by type of intervention (elective or emergency). Moreover, we evaluated whether the in-hospital mortality was affected by the surgeon performing the intervention. Because our population presented a multilevel structure with patients (level 1) nested within the surgeon (level 2), random effects were included in the logistic models [15]. Three models were fitted: (1) the surgeon random effect alone (null model); (2) the surgeon random effect together with the EuroSCORE; and (3) the surgeon’s expertise (adjusted model). The expertise of the surgeon was defined on the basis of the average number of interventions performed each year, which was then divided into 3 categories: <25, 25 to 90 and ≥90 interventions. In this analysis, surgeons active for less than 1 year were excluded. Third, the surgeon random effect together with the EuroSCORE II, the surgeon’s expertise and the complexity of the intervention (fully adjusted model). The complexity was evaluated separately by 2 different specialists (GM, SP) and classified on a scale from 1 (low complexity) to 5 (high complexity). Within each model, the variance of the distribution of the random effects was used to test the null hypothesis of no surgeon random effect.
RESULTS
A total of 4,034 patients were included in the cohort. The mean age was 65.1 years and 68% were males. Other baseline characteristics of the study cohort are depicted in Table1. By comparing the baseline characteristics of the study cohort to those of the original EuroSCORE II population, we found no differences in age, sex and clinical preoperative state between the 2 study populations. In our study group, a significantly lower number of patients with severe renal dysfunction who needed dialysis (standardized difference = −0.14) and with diabetes treated with insulin (standardized difference = −0.10) were reported. The number of in-hospital deaths that occurred within 30 days from the date of the operation was 127 (3.12%).
Table 1:
Baseline characteristics of the study cohort
| EuroSCORE II variables | Study cohort N = 4,034 | Percent missing |
|---|---|---|
| Age in years—mean (standard deviation) | 65.1 (11.5) | 0 |
| Sex, male | 2,745 (68.0%) | 0 |
| COPD | 304 (7.5%) | 0.7 |
| Diabetes, on insulin | 207 (5.1%) | 0.7 |
| Peripheral arteriopathy | 349 (8.7%) | 0 |
| Poor mobility | 247 (6.1%) | 0 |
| Previous cardiac surgery | 437 (10.8%) | 0 |
| Active endocarditis | 117 (2.9%) | 0 |
| Critical preoperative state | 148 (3.7%) | 0 |
| Neurological dysfunction | 100 (2.5%) | 0.4 |
| Recent myocardial infarction | 199 (4.9%) | 0.7 |
| Renal impairment | 2,356 (58.4%) | 3.6 |
| CC >50–85 | 1,853 (45.9%) | |
| CC ≤50 | 500 (12.4%) | |
| Dialysis | 3 (0.1%) | |
| NYHA class | 2.8 | |
| I | 776(19.2%) | |
| II | 2,394 (59.4%) | |
| III | 634 (15.7%) | |
| IV | 74 (1.8%) | |
| CCS IV | 43 (1.1%) | 1.4 |
| LVEF (%) | 3.5 | |
| >50 | 3,430 (85.0%) | |
| 31–50 | 434 (10.8%) | |
| 21–30 | 58 (1.4%) | |
| ≤20 | 10 (0.3%) | |
| Type of surgery | 3.2 | |
| Isolated CABG | 674 (16.7%) | |
| Surgery other than isolated CABG | 2,155 (53.4%) | |
| 2 procedures | 960 (23.8%) | |
| 3 procedures | 162 (4.0%) | |
| Surgery on thoracic aorta | 454 (11.3%) | 0 |
| Setting | 2.8 | |
| Election | 3595 (89.11%) | |
| Urgent | 200 (5.0%) | |
| Emergency | 126 (3.1%) | |
| Salvage | 7 (0.2%) |
Open in a new tab
CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; CC: creatinine clearance; CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York Heart Association.
Importantly, our population depicts a marked change in the kind of surgical interventions performed most frequently in the last decade. Given that, in 2012, 46.7% of the EuroSCORE II population was represented by patients undergoing isolated CABG, in our population this kind of intervention represents only 16.7% of the total (SD = −0.68) (Table2).
Table 2:
Comparison of the baseline characteristics between the study cohort and the EuroSCORE II population
| EuroSCORE II Variables | Study cohort N = 4034 | EuroSCORE II population N = 22381 | Standardized difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years—mean (standard deviation) | 65.1 (11.5) | 64.6 (12.5) | 0.04 |
| Sex, male | 2,745 (68.0%) | 15,465 (69.1%) | −0.02 |
| Diabetes, on insulin | 207 (5.1%) | 1,700 (7.6%) | −0.10 |
| Active endocarditis | 117 (2.9%) | 492 (2.2%) | 0.04 |
| Critical preoperative state | 148 (3.7%) | 918 (4.1%) | −0.02 |
| Neurological dysfunction | 100 (2.5%) | 716 (3.2%) | −0.04 |
| Dialysis | 3 (0.1%) | 246 (1.1%) | −0.14 |
| Isolated CABG | 674 (16.7%) | 10,452 (46.7%) | −0.68 |
| Surgery on thoracic aorta | 454 (11.3%) | 1,634 (7.3%) | 0.14 |
| Urgent | 200 (5.0%) | 4,140 (18.5%) | −0.39 |
Open in a new tab
CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting.
The EuroSCORE II showed good discrimination power in our population [AUC = 0.834; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.798–0.871, Fig.1A). The corresponding figures for patients operated on in elective or in an emergency-urgent setting were 0.764 (95% CI: 0.707–0.821) and 0.801 (95% CI: 0.744–0.859), respectively (Fig.1B, 1C). Figures2A and 2B showed the calibration plots that assess the concordance between predicted and observed in-hospital mortality probabilities. Importantly, for interventions performed in an elective setting (Fig.2A), the very low values of the EuroSCORE II overestimate the real (observed) in-hospital mortality. Moreover, for interventions performed in an emergency-urgent setting (Fig.2B), EuroSCORE II values above 10 extensively underestimated the observed in-hospital mortality. The same analysis was done by stratifying the population according to CABG, valvular ± CABG and aorta (Supplementary Fig. 2). Results are also confirmed in the subanalysis run in the subgroup of patients undergoing emergency-urgent procedures and EuroSCORE II >10.II >10 (Supplementary Fig. 4).
Figure 1:
Open in a new tab
Figure 2:
Open in a new tab
Finally, the estimated variance of the surgeon-specific random effect was not significant for the completely adjusted model (0.0642; P = 0.1788). These findings suggest that the surgeon did not affect the mortality rate, independent of the other covariates.
DISCUSSION
Risk stratification and risk scoring systems are extremely relevant in adult cardiac surgery because they are needed to guide the decisions of the heart teams by providing an accurate evaluation of patients’ perioperative mortality risks. Risk scores are also important because they allow comparisons of outcomes between different institutions and surgeons, and they permit the evaluation of intrahospital mortality. In recent years, the EuroSCORE II has been widely adopted as a risk prediction tool in adult cardiac surgery, especially in Europe. This model, however, was derived from data collections and from the analysis of 22,381 consecutive cases in 154 European hospitals in 2010, when isolated coronary bypass grafting was by far the most frequent adult cardiac surgical procedure [16]. In the subsequent years, a number of studies sought to validate the performance of the EuroSCORE II in real-world populations of cardiac surgery patients with a variety of ethnic and geographical origins [17–18] and of cardiac pathologies [3–5]. However, several studies showed that the EuroSCORE II does not reliably predict effective mortality after cardiac surgery in different subgroups of patients undergoing cardiac procedures.
In 2012, Biancari et al. [19] demonstrated that the EuroSCORE II had a good discrimination power in patients undergoing isolated CABG, but that its ability decreases when applied to valve surgery, especially when it is associated with other procedures [10]. Carino et al. [11] in 2021, by analysing a cohort of 2,645 patients who underwent exclusively surgical mitral valve repair, showed that the EuroSCORE II was associated with low discrimination (AUC = 0.68), low accuracy (Brier score = 0.27) and low calibration power with an overestimation of the 30-day mortality in patients affected by degenerative mitral regurgitation.
Barili et al. as early as 2012 [20] demonstrated that the EuroSCORE II has an optimal calibration power up to 30% predicted probability, whereas it progressively overpredicts afterwards, suggesting that the EuroSCORE II performs well in the first tertile of risk, but then its ability to discriminate deteriorates dramatically. Similarly, in 2013, Paparella et al. [21] demonstrated that the EuroSCORE II model performed well in predicting hospital mortality on a large cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery (>6000 procedures; AUC = 0.830). The worst performance was detected for the highest EuroSCORE II deciles, which showed a lower predicted than observed risk of death. Because this risk model was developed 12 years ago, by now, it is expected that it can hardly reflect the current cardiac surgical practice that has changed over the years due to improved surgical techniques and advances in the management of patient postoperatively. Interestingly, 10 years later, our data, collected on 4,034 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our centre, confirm the generally good capacity of the EuroSCORE in discriminating patients alive or dead (AUC = 0.834), identifying a value of 10% of predicted mortality above which the EuroSCORE II seems to be unreliable in predicting the mortality of patients undergoing cardiac surgery operations. It is noteworthy that the types of interventions performed on our population of 4,034 patients were consistently different both from those of the EuroSCORE II and of the manuscript from Paparella et al. [21], reflecting the extensive evolution of cardiac surgery in the last decade.
Since the EuroSCORE II was published, percutaneous coronary interventions have spread widely as a valid alternative technique to CABG for myocardial revascularization, so that CABG procedures have decreased over the years in several European countries. If patients undergoing procedures of isolated CABG in 2010 and 2013 represented 46.7% and 42% in EuroSCORE II and Paparella et al., respectively, in our population they represent only 16.7%, with most cardiac surgery procedures being represented by valve surgery, which instead accounted for less than 30% of the total procedures on which the EuroSCORE II was estimated. Most importantly, the effect of the surgeon was not considered in the original EuroSCORE study, so we added this further analysis with the goal of evaluating whether the surgeons could play a role in explaining the variability in the observed mortality. Indeed, it may be argued that the difference between observed and predicted probabilities of death shown in the calibration plots in Fig.2 may be due to the expertise of the surgeons. However, the estimated variance of the surgeon-specific random effect showed that surgeons did not affect patients’ mortality, ruling out the hypothesis that the observed differences can be due to the variability in the expertise of the surgeons.
Our study reflects more accurately the actual cohort of patients who had cardiac surgery than the cohort represented in the EuroSCORE II original publication, showing that, nowadays, this score is not reliable over a value of 10%.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. Because this is a single-centre study, the results may not be generalizable to the clinical practice of different hospital centres; therefore, the percentage of patients undergoing CABG in our centre is lower than that in other hospitals. Because the accuracy of risk prediction of a mortality model depends on the characteristics of the patients being operated on, our findings could be reliably applied only to populations with baseline characteristics similar to the ones analysed in this study. However, the Monzino Cardiology Centre represents a high-volume centre with the highest standard of expertise and competence in cardiac surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that, despite a good ability of the EuroSCORE II in discriminating patients alive or dead, it is not reliable in predicting the risk of death, especially when its value is above 10%. New scores are deemed to better evaluate the perioperative mortality risk after cardiac surgery.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplementary material is available at EJCTS online.
Funding
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest: None declared
Supplementary Material
ezad294_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (199KB, zip)
Contributor Information
Giorgio Mastroiacovo, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Milan, Italy.
Alice Bonomi, Department of Statistics, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milan, Italy.
Monica Ludergnani, Healthcare Management, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milan, Italy.
Matteo Franchi, Department of Statistics, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milan, Italy; National Centre for Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Head Office at the Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo Maragna, Cardiovascular Imaging Department, Centro Cardiologico Monzino IRCCS, 20138, Milan, Italy.
Sergio Pirola, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Milan, Italy.
Andrea Baggiano, Cardiovascular Imaging Department, Centro Cardiologico Monzino IRCCS, 20138, Milan, Italy; Cardiovascular Section, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Alice Caglio, Healthcare Management, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milan, Italy.
Gianluca Pontone, Cardiovascular Imaging Department, Centro Cardiologico Monzino IRCCS, 20138, Milan, Italy.
Gianluca Polvani, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Milan, Italy; Department of Surgical and Dental Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Italy.
Luca Merlino, Head of Healthcare Management, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milan, Italy.
Data availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
Giorgio Mastroiacovo: Writing–review & editing; Alice Bonomi: Formal Analysis; Methology; Writing–review & editing; Monica Ludergnani: Methodology; Formal Analysis; Writing–review & editing; Matteo Franchi: Methology; Formal Analysis; Writing–review & editing; Riccardo Maragna: Writing–review & editing; Sergio Pirola: Supervision; Writing–review & editing; Andrea Baggiano: Supervision; Writing–review & editing; Alice Caglio: Formal Analysis; Methology; Writing–review & editing; Gianluca Pontone: Supervision; Writing–review & editing; Gianluca Polvani: Supervision; Writing–review & editing; Luca Merlino: Supervision; Writing–review & editing.
Reviewer information
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery thanks Vito Domenico Bruno, Antonio Nenna and the other, anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review process of this article.
REFERENCES
- 1.Nashef SAM, Roques F, Sharples LD, Nilsson J, Smith C, Goldstone AR. et al. EuroSCORE II dagger. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:734–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Sep 21 ESC Scientific Document Group et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017;38:2739–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Di Dedda U, Pelissero G, Agnelli B, De Vincentiis C, Castelvecchio S, Ranucci M.. Accuracy, calibration and clinical performance of the new EuroSCORE II risk stratification system. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;43:27–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chalmers J, Pullan M, Fabri B, McShane J, Shaw M, Mediratta N. et al. Validation of EuroSCORE II in a modern cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;43:688–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Grant SW, Hickey GL, Dimarakis I, Trivedi U, Bryan A, Treasure T. et al. How does EuroSCORE II perform in UK cardiac surgery; an analysis of 23 740 patients from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National Database. Heart 2012;98:1568–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Siregar S, Groenwold RHH, de Heer F, Bots ML, van der Graaf Y, van Herwerden LA.. Performance of the original EuroSCORE. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:746–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shan L, Ge W, Pu Y, Cheng H, Cang Z, Zhang X. et al. Assessment of three risk evaluation systems for patients aged >/=70 in East China: performance of SinoSCORE, EuroSCORE II and the STS risk evaluation system. PeerJ 2018;6:e4413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Taleb Bendiab T, Brusset A, Estagnasie P, Squara P, Nguyen LS.. Performance of EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2021;114:474–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Barili F, Pacini D, Capo A, Ardemagni E, Pellicciari G, Zanobini M. et al. Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after isolated aortic valve surgery: a comparison with the society of thoracic surgeons score and logistic EuroSCORE. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;95:1539–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Parolari A, Pesce LL, Trezzi M, Cavallotti L, Kassem S, Loardi C. et al. EuroSCORE performance in valve surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;89:787–93. 793 e781-782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Carino D, Denti P, Ascione G, Del Forno B, Lapenna E, Ruggeri S. et al. Is the EuroSCORE II reliable in surgical mitral valve repair? A single-centre validation study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29 2021;59:863–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Austin PC.Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research. Commun Stat-Simul C 2009;38:1228–34. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr., D'Agostino RB Jr., Vasan RS.. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 30 2008;27:157–72. discussion 207-112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jaja BNR, Saposnik G, Lingsma HF, Macdonald E, Thorpe KE, Mamdani M, SAHIT collaboration et al. Development and validation of outcome prediction models for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: the SAHIT multinational cohort study. BMJ 2018; 18360:j5745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Larsen K, Merlo J.. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol 1 2005;161:81–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone AR, Nashef SA.. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J 2003;24:882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Garcia-Valentin A, Mestres CA, Bernabeu E, Bahamonde JA, Martín I, Rueda C. et al. Validation and quality measurements for EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II in the Spanish cardiac surgical population: a prospective, multicentre study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;49:399–405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shen L, Chen X, Gu J, Xue S.. Validation of EuroSCORE II in Chinese Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Heart Surg Forum 31 2018;21:E036–E039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Biancari F, Vasques F, Mikkola R, Martin M, Lahtinen J, Heikkinen J.. Validation of EuroSCORE II in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1930–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Barili F, Pacini D, Capo A, Rasovic O, Grossi C, Alamanni F. et al. Does EuroSCORE II perform better than its original versions? A multicentre validation study. Eur Heart J 2013;34:22–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Paparella D, Guida P, Di Eusanio G, Caparrotti S, Gregorini R, Cassese M. et al. Risk stratification for in-hospital mortality after cardiac surgery: external validation of EuroSCORE II in a prospective regional registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:840–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
ezad294_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (199KB, zip)
Data Availability Statement
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
