Literature DB >> 20716737

Prediction of critical illness during out-of-hospital emergency care.

Christopher W Seymour1, Jeremy M Kahn, Colin R Cooke, Timothy R Watkins, Susan R Heckbert, Thomas D Rea.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Early identification of nontrauma patients in need of critical care services in the emergency setting may improve triage decisions and facilitate regionalization of critical care.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the out-of-hospital clinical predictors of critical illness and to characterize the performance of a simple score for out-of-hospital prediction of development of critical illness during hospitalization. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Population-based cohort study of an emergency medical services (EMS) system in greater King County, Washington (excluding metropolitan Seattle), that transports to 16 receiving facilities. PATIENTS: Nontrauma, non-cardiac arrest adult patients transported to a hospital by King County EMS from 2002 through 2006. Eligible records with complete data (N = 144,913) were linked to hospital discharge data and randomly split into development (n = 87,266 [60%]) and validation (n = 57,647 [40%]) cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Development of critical illness, defined as severe sepsis, delivery of mechanical ventilation, or death during hospitalization.
RESULTS: Critical illness occurred during hospitalization in 5% of the development (n = 4835) and validation (n = 3121) cohorts. Multivariable predictors of critical illness included older age, lower systolic blood pressure, abnormal respiratory rate, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, lower pulse oximetry, and nursing home residence during out-of-hospital care (P < .01 for all). When applying a summary critical illness prediction score to the validation cohort (range, 0-8), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.78), with satisfactory calibration slope (1.0). Using a score threshold of 4 or higher, sensitivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.20-0.23), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98), positive likelihood ratio was 9.8 (95% CI, 8.9-10.6), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79- 0.82). A threshold of 1 or greater for critical illness improved sensitivity (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98) but reduced specificity (0.17; 95% CI, 0.17-0.17).
CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based cohort, the score on a prediction rule using out-of-hospital factors was significantly associated with the development of critical illness during hospitalization. This score requires external validation in an independent population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20716737      PMCID: PMC3949007          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  47 in total

1.  Probabilistic linkage of computerized ambulance and inpatient hospital discharge records: a potential tool for evaluation of emergency medical services.

Authors:  J M Dean; D D Vernon; L Cook; P Nechodom; J Reading; A Suruda
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.721

2.  Should scoring rules be based on odds ratios or regression coefficients?

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Frank E Harrell; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Validity of procedure codes in International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Gerry A Parsons; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Defining the emergency care sensitive condition: a health policy research agenda in emergency medicine.

Authors:  Brendan G Carr; Patrick H Conway; Zachary F Meisel; Claudia A Steiner; Carolyn Clancy
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 5.721

5.  Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project--phase I: patient characteristics and feasibility of prehospital initiation of thrombolytic therapy.

Authors:  W D Weaver; M S Eisenberg; J S Martin; P E Litwin; S M Shaeffer; M T Ho; P Kudenchuk; A P Hallstrom; M D Cerqueira; M K Copass
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  In-hospital factors associated with improved outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A comparison between four regions in Norway.

Authors:  A Langhelle; S S Tyvold; K Lexow; S A Hapnes; K Sunde; P A Steen
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.262

Review 7.  Validation of probabilistic predictions.

Authors:  M E Miller; C D Langefeld; W M Tierney; S L Hui; C J McDonald
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1993 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system.

Authors:  W A Knaus; J E Zimmerman; D P Wagner; E A Draper; D E Lawrence
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 7.598

View more
  56 in total

1.  Understanding of sepsis among emergency medical services: a survey study.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; David Carlbom; Ruth A Engelberg; Jonathan Larsen; Eileen M Bulger; Michael K Copass; Thomas D Rea
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 1.484

2.  Predicting cardiac arrest on the wards: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Michael T Huber; Seo Young Park; Jesse B Hall; Dana P Edelson
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Accuracy of Prehospital Intravenous Fluid Volume Measurement by Emergency Medical Services.

Authors:  Patrick J Coppler; Rajagopala Padmanabhan; Christian Martin-Gill; Clifton W Callaway; Donald M Yealy; Christopher W Seymour
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  Regionalized Critical Care May Be Feasible, But Will It Improve Outcomes?

Authors:  Sydney E S Brown
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Reporting of Sepsis Cases for Performance Measurement Versus for Reimbursement in New York State.

Authors:  Hallie C Prescott; Tara M Cope; Foster C Gesten; Tatiana A Ledneva; Marcus E Friedrich; Theodore J Iwashyna; Tiffany M Osborn; Christopher W Seymour; Mitchell M Levy
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Gastrostomy Tube Use in the Critically Ill, 1994-2014.

Authors:  Anica C Law; Jennifer P Stevens; Allan J Walkey
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2019-06

7.  Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; Vincent X Liu; Theodore J Iwashyna; Frank M Brunkhorst; Thomas D Rea; André Scherag; Gordon Rubenfeld; Jeremy M Kahn; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Gabriel J Escobar; Derek C Angus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Using existing data to address important clinical questions in critical care.

Authors:  Colin R Cooke; Theodore J Iwashyna
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Accuracy of prehospital transport time estimation.

Authors:  David J Wallace; Jeremy M Kahn; Derek C Angus; Christian Martin-Gill; Clifton W Callaway; Thomas D Rea; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Kristen Kurland; Christopher W Seymour
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.451

10.  Prehospital identification of community sepsis using biomarkers of host response.

Authors:  Emily B Brant; Christian Martin-Gill; Clifton W Callaway; Derek C Angus; Christopher W Seymour
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.