Literature DB >> 16484895

Scoring system for the selection of high-risk patients in the intensive care unit.

Gaetano Iapichino1, Giovanni Mistraletti, Davide Corbella, Gabriele Bassi, Erika Borotto, Dinis Reis Miranda, Alberto Morabito.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit greatly differ in severity and intensity of care. We devised a system for selecting high-risk patients that reduces bias by excluding low-risk patients and patients with an early death irrespective of the treatment.
DESIGN: A posteriori analysis of a multiple-center prospective observational trial.
SETTING: A total of 89 units from 12 European countries, with 12,615 patients. INTERVENTION: Demographic and clinical data: severity of illness at admission, daily score of nursing workload, length of stay, and hospital mortality.
METHODS: We enrolled patients with intensive care unit length of stay of >24 hrs. Three groups of high-risk patients were created: a) Severity group, those with Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) over the median; b) Intensity-of-care group, patients with >1 day of high level of care (assessed by logistic analysis); and c) MIX group, patients fulfilling both Severity and Intensity-of-care criteria. The groups were included in a logistic regression model (random split-sample design) to identify the characteristics associated with hospital mortality. We compared the outcome prediction of the SAPS II model (unsplit sample) against our model. MAIN
RESULTS: Out of 8,248 patients, the Severity method selected 3,838 patients, Intensity-of-care selected 4,244, and both methods combined selected 2,662 patients. There were 2,828 low-risk patients. Significant associations with hospital mortality were observed for: age, sites of admission, medical/unscheduled surgical admission, acute physiologic score of SAPS II, and the indicator variable "only Severity," "only Intensity-of-care," or MIX (developmental sample: calibration chi-square test, p = .205; area under the receiver operation characteristic curve, 0.814). Calibration and discrimination were better in our model than with the SAPS II model (unsplit sample).
CONCLUSION: All three indicator variables select high-risk patients, the Severity/Intensity-of-care MIX being the most robust. These stratification criteria can improve case-mix selection for clinical and organizational studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16484895     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206286.19444.40

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  5 in total

Review 1.  [Scoring systems for daily assessment in intensive care medicine. Overview, current possibilities and demands on new developments].

Authors:  F Brenck; B Hartmann; M Mogk; A Junger
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Assessing Intensity of Nursing Care Needs Using Electronically Available Data.

Authors:  Elaine L Larson; Bevin Cohen; Jianfang Liu; Philip Zachariah; David Yao; Jingjing Shang
Journal:  Comput Inform Nurs       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Machine Learning and Mobile Health Monitoring Platforms: A Case Study on Research and Implementation Challenges.

Authors:  Omar Boursalie; Reza Samavi; Thomas E Doyle
Journal:  J Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2018-05-22

4.  Pandemic influenza and excess intensive-care workload.

Authors:  Raoul E Nap; Maarten P H M Andriessen; Nico E L Meessen; Dinis dos Reis Miranda; Tjip S van der Werf
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 6.883

5.  Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Giovanni Mistraletti; Elena S Mantovani; Paolo Cadringher; Barbara Cerri; Davide Corbella; Michele Umbrello; Stefania Anania; Elisa Andrighi; Serena Barello; Alessandra Di Carlo; Federica Martinetti; Paolo Formenti; Paolo Spanu; Gaetano Iapichino
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.