OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of the Parsonnet score (PS) in identifying preoperatively patients that are likely to spend < 24 hours on the intensive care unit (ICU) following cardiac surgery. METHOD: Prospectively collected data on 5591 patients were analysed. PS, mortality, the length of stay on the ICU (ICU-LOS), number of patients with clinical evidence of stroke, need for haemofiltration, resternotomy for bleeding, tracheostomy, and use of intra-aortic balloon pump were documented as outcomes. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours identified a PS of 10 as the best cut off point that would predict ICU-LOS < 24 hours. The patients were therefore stratified by PS into two groups, those with a PS of 0 to 9 (PS 0-9) and those with a PS of 10 and above (PS 10+). RESULTS: The ROC curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours had an area under the curve of 0.70 (0.01). The maximum efficiency of the test was at a sensitivity of 0.68. This corresponded to PS 10. The positive predictive value of the test at this score was 90.5%. Patients with PS 0-9 had a mean ICU stay of 1.49 days, while patients with PS 10+ had a mean ICU stay of 2.89 days (p = 0.01). The risk of stroke, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, requirement for haemofiltration, need for tracheostomy, and risk of resternotomy for bleeding were each significantly less in patients with PS 0-9 versus those with a score of PS 10+ (p < 0.01 in all cases). The risk of a single complication was 4.7% (PS 0-9) v 15.2% (PS 10+) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PS is an impartial and objective method of predicting postoperative complications and ICU stay < 24 hours. This is of value in selecting a cohort of patients likely to maintain a smooth flow of patients through the cardiothoracic unit when resources are limited to a few free ICU beds.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of the Parsonnet score (PS) in identifying preoperatively patients that are likely to spend < 24 hours on the intensive care unit (ICU) following cardiac surgery. METHOD: Prospectively collected data on 5591 patients were analysed. PS, mortality, the length of stay on the ICU (ICU-LOS), number of patients with clinical evidence of stroke, need for haemofiltration, resternotomy for bleeding, tracheostomy, and use of intra-aortic balloon pump were documented as outcomes. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours identified a PS of 10 as the best cut off point that would predict ICU-LOS < 24 hours. The patients were therefore stratified by PS into two groups, those with a PS of 0 to 9 (PS 0-9) and those with a PS of 10 and above (PS 10+). RESULTS: The ROC curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours had an area under the curve of 0.70 (0.01). The maximum efficiency of the test was at a sensitivity of 0.68. This corresponded to PS 10. The positive predictive value of the test at this score was 90.5%. Patients with PS 0-9 had a mean ICU stay of 1.49 days, while patients with PS 10+ had a mean ICU stay of 2.89 days (p = 0.01). The risk of stroke, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, requirement for haemofiltration, need for tracheostomy, and risk of resternotomy for bleeding were each significantly less in patients with PS 0-9 versus those with a score of PS 10+ (p < 0.01 in all cases). The risk of a single complication was 4.7% (PS 0-9) v 15.2% (PS 10+) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PS is an impartial and objective method of predicting postoperative complications and ICU stay < 24 hours. This is of value in selecting a cohort of patients likely to maintain a smooth flow of patients through the cardiothoracic unit when resources are limited to a few free ICU beds.
Authors: M J Unsworth-White; A Herriot; O Valencia; J Poloniecki; E E Smith; A J Murday; D J Parker; T Treasure Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: K Van Loon; F Guiza; G Meyfroidt; J-M Aerts; J Ramon; H Blockeel; M Bruynooghe; G Van den Berghe; D Berckmans Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Benoit de Varennes; Kevin Lachapelle; Renzo Cecere; Patrick Ergina; Dominique Shum-Tim; Christo Tchervenkov; John Sampalis Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Roelof G A Ettema; Linda M Peelen; Cor J Kalkman; Arno P Nierich; Karel G M Moons; Marieke J Schuurmans Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sanjay V Ghotkar; Antony D Grayson; Brian M Fabri; Walid C Dihmis; D Mark Pullan Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: David M Shaw; Ainsley M Sutherland; James A Russell; Samuel V Lichtenstein; Keith R Walley Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Inge T Bootsma; Thomas W L Scheeren; Fellery de Lange; Johannes Haenen; Piet W Boonstra; E Christaan Boerma Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2018-12-27