OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop an intensive care unit research database applying automated techniques to aggregate high-resolution diagnostic and therapeutic data from a large, diverse population of adult intensive care unit patients. This freely available database is intended to support epidemiologic research in critical care medicine and serve as a resource to evaluate new clinical decision support and monitoring algorithms. DESIGN: Data collection and retrospective analysis. SETTING: All adult intensive care units (medical intensive care unit, surgical intensive care unit, cardiac care unit, cardiac surgery recovery unit) at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to intensive care units between 2001 and 2007. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II) database consists of 25,328 intensive care unit stays. The investigators collected detailed information about intensive care unit patient stays, including laboratory data, therapeutic intervention profiles such as vasoactive medication drip rates and ventilator settings, nursing progress notes, discharge summaries, radiology reports, provider order entry data, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes, and, for a subset of patients, high-resolution vital sign trends and waveforms. Data were automatically deidentified to comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act standards and integrated with relational database software to create electronic intensive care unit records for each patient stay. The data were made freely available in February 2010 through the Internet along with a detailed user's guide and an assortment of data processing tools. The overall hospital mortality rate was 11.7%, which varied by critical care unit. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 2.2 days (interquartile range, 1.1-4.4 days). According to the primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes, the following disease categories each comprised at least 5% of the case records: diseases of the circulatory system (39.1%); trauma (10.2%); diseases of the digestive system (9.7%); pulmonary diseases (9.0%); infectious diseases (7.0%); and neoplasms (6.8%). CONCLUSIONS: MIMIC-II documents a diverse and very large population of intensive care unit patient stays and contains comprehensive and detailed clinical data, including physiological waveforms and minute-by-minute trends for a subset of records. It establishes a new public-access resource for critical care research, supporting a diverse range of analytic studies spanning epidemiology, clinical decision-rule development, and electronic tool development.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop an intensive care unit research database applying automated techniques to aggregate high-resolution diagnostic and therapeutic data from a large, diverse population of adult intensive care unit patients. This freely available database is intended to support epidemiologic research in critical care medicine and serve as a resource to evaluate new clinical decision support and monitoring algorithms. DESIGN: Data collection and retrospective analysis. SETTING: All adult intensive care units (medical intensive care unit, surgical intensive care unit, cardiac care unit, cardiac surgery recovery unit) at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to intensive care units between 2001 and 2007. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II) database consists of 25,328 intensive care unit stays. The investigators collected detailed information about intensive care unit patient stays, including laboratory data, therapeutic intervention profiles such as vasoactive medication drip rates and ventilator settings, nursing progress notes, discharge summaries, radiology reports, provider order entry data, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes, and, for a subset of patients, high-resolution vital sign trends and waveforms. Data were automatically deidentified to comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act standards and integrated with relational database software to create electronic intensive care unit records for each patient stay. The data were made freely available in February 2010 through the Internet along with a detailed user's guide and an assortment of data processing tools. The overall hospital mortality rate was 11.7%, which varied by critical care unit. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 2.2 days (interquartile range, 1.1-4.4 days). According to the primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes, the following disease categories each comprised at least 5% of the case records: diseases of the circulatory system (39.1%); trauma (10.2%); diseases of the digestive system (9.7%); pulmonary diseases (9.0%); infectious diseases (7.0%); and neoplasms (6.8%). CONCLUSIONS: MIMIC-II documents a diverse and very large population of intensive care unit patient stays and contains comprehensive and detailed clinical data, including physiological waveforms and minute-by-minute trends for a subset of records. It establishes a new public-access resource for critical care research, supporting a diverse range of analytic studies spanning epidemiology, clinical decision-rule development, and electronic tool development.
Authors: Marta L Render; James Deddens; Ron Freyberg; Peter Almenoff; Alfred F Connors; Douglas Wagner; Timothy P Hofer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravindra L Mehta; John A Kellum; Sudhir V Shah; Bruce A Molitoris; Claudio Ronco; David G Warnock; Adeera Levin Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Elyne Scheurwegs; Kim Luyckx; Léon Luyten; Walter Daelemans; Tim Van den Bulcke Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Leo Anthony Celi; Edward Moseley; Christopher Moses; Padhraig Ryan; Melek Somai; David Stone; Kai-Ou Tang Journal: Big Data Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 2.128
Authors: Louis Mayaud; Peggy S Lai; Gari D Clifford; Lionel Tarassenko; Leo Anthony Celi; Djillali Annane Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: John Danziger; Jeffrey H William; Daniel J Scott; Joon Lee; Li-wei Lehman; Roger G Mark; Michael D Howell; Leo A Celi; Kenneth J Mukamal Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 10.612