INTRODUCTION: A new disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) scoring system was recently announced by Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM). We have conducted a prospective external validation study to assess the accuracy of this scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients admitted to the ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in 2007 were prospectively observed. All patients younger than 15 years of age, those who stayed in the ICU for less than 24 hours, had cardiac surgery, hematological diseases, recent chemotherapy or radiotherapy or liver cirrhosis were excluded. The remaining patients were then screened using the JAAM DIC scoring system. RESULTS: DIC was diagnosed by the JAAM DIC scoring system in 45 of the 242 patients screened (18.6%). The DIC patients were older, had a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and stayed in the ICU longer in comparison to the non-DIC patients. However, hospital mortality was similar between the two groups (p=0.98). There was no difference in the JAAM DIC score between the surviving and non-surviving DIC patients (p=0.40). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the DIC diagnosed by JAAM to have a non-significant low odds ratio for hospital mortality (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08-1.08, p=0.066). CONCLUSION: We have reported an external validation study of the JAAM DIC scoring system, which was conducted outside of the centers where data for developing the score were collected. DIC diagnosed by this scoring system was not related to hospital mortality. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: A new disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) scoring system was recently announced by Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM). We have conducted a prospective external validation study to assess the accuracy of this scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients admitted to the ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in 2007 were prospectively observed. All patients younger than 15 years of age, those who stayed in the ICU for less than 24 hours, had cardiac surgery, hematological diseases, recent chemotherapy or radiotherapy or liver cirrhosis were excluded. The remaining patients were then screened using the JAAM DIC scoring system. RESULTS: DIC was diagnosed by the JAAM DIC scoring system in 45 of the 242 patients screened (18.6%). The DIC patients were older, had a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and stayed in the ICU longer in comparison to the non-DIC patients. However, hospital mortality was similar between the two groups (p=0.98). There was no difference in the JAAM DIC score between the surviving and non-surviving DIC patients (p=0.40). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the DIC diagnosed by JAAM to have a non-significant low odds ratio for hospital mortality (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08-1.08, p=0.066). CONCLUSION: We have reported an external validation study of the JAAM DIC scoring system, which was conducted outside of the centers where data for developing the score were collected. DIC diagnosed by this scoring system was not related to hospital mortality. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.