Article Text

Download PDFPDF
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
  1. Stuart William Grant1,
  2. Graeme Lee Hickey2,
  3. Ioannis Dimarakis1,
  4. Uday Trivedi3,
  5. Alan Bryan4,
  6. Tom Treasure5,
  7. Graham Cooper6,
  8. Domenico Pagano7,
  9. Iain Buchan2,
  10. Ben Bridgewater1
  1. 1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University, Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2The Northwest Institute for BioHealth Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Northwest Institute for BioHealth Informatics, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
  4. 4Department of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
  5. 5Clinical Operational Research Unit, UCL, Department of Mathematics, London, UK
  6. 6Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  7. 7Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Quality and Outcomes Research Unit, University Hospital Birmingham-Queen Elizabeth, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Ben Bridgewater, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science, Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK; ben.bridgewater{at}


Objective The original EuroSCORE models are poorly calibrated for predicting mortality in contemporary cardiac surgery. EuroSCORE II has been proposed as a new risk model. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of EuroSCORE II in UK cardiac surgery.

Design A cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected multi-centre clinical audit data, from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland Database.

Setting All NHS hospitals, and some UK private hospitals performing adult cardiac surgery.

Patients 23 740 procedures at 41 hospitals between July 2010 and March 2011.

Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Model calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow test, calibration plot) and discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve) were assessed in the overall cohort and clinically defined sub-groups.

Results The mean age at procedure was 67.1 years (SD 11.8) and 27.7% were women. The overall mortality was 3.1% with a EuroSCORE II predicted mortality of 3.4%. Calibration was good overall but the model failed the Hosmer–Lemeshow test (p=0.003) mainly due to over-prediction in the highest and lowest-risk patients. Calibration was poor for isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery (Hosmer–Lemeshow, p<0.001). The model had good discrimination overall (area under receiver operating characteristic curve 0.808, 95% CI 0.793 to 0.824) and in all clinical sub-groups analysed.

Conclusions EuroSCORE II performs well overall in the UK and is an acceptable contemporary generic cardiac surgery risk model. However, the model is poorly calibrated for isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery and in both the highest and lowest risk patients. Regular revalidation of EuroSCORE II will be needed to identify calibration drift or clinical inconsistencies, which commonly emerge in clinical prediction models.

  • Risk assessment
  • EuroSCORE II
  • cardiac surgery
  • mortality
  • coronary artery bypass grafting
  • aortic valve replacement

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding This research was partly funded by Heart Research UK Grant RG2583.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.