BACKGROUND: Clinical deterioration of ward patients can result in intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, cardiac arrest (CA), and/or death. These different outcomes have been used to develop and test track and trigger systems, but the impact of outcome selection on the performance of prediction algorithms is unknown. METHODS: Patients hospitalized on the wards between November 2008 and August 2011 at an academic hospital were included in the study. Ward vital signs and demographic characteristics were compared across outcomes. The dataset was then split into derivation and validation cohorts. Logistic regression was used to derive four models (one per outcome and a combined outcome) for predicting each event within 24h of a vital sign set. The models were compared in the validation cohort using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 59,643 patients were included in the study (including 109 ward CAs, 291 deaths, and 2638 ICU transfers). Most mean vital signs within 24h of the events differed statistically, with those before death being the most deranged. Validation model AUCs were highest for predicting mortality (range 0.73-0.82), followed by CA (range 0.74-0.76), and lowest for predicting ICU transfer (range 0.68-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in vital signs before CA, ICU transfer, and death, the different models performed similarly for detecting each outcome. Mortality was the easiest outcome to predict and ICU transfer the most difficult. Studies should be interpreted with these differences in mind.
BACKGROUND: Clinical deterioration of ward patients can result in intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, cardiac arrest (CA), and/or death. These different outcomes have been used to develop and test track and trigger systems, but the impact of outcome selection on the performance of prediction algorithms is unknown. METHODS:Patients hospitalized on the wards between November 2008 and August 2011 at an academic hospital were included in the study. Ward vital signs and demographic characteristics were compared across outcomes. The dataset was then split into derivation and validation cohorts. Logistic regression was used to derive four models (one per outcome and a combined outcome) for predicting each event within 24h of a vital sign set. The models were compared in the validation cohort using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 59,643 patients were included in the study (including 109 ward CAs, 291 deaths, and 2638 ICU transfers). Most mean vital signs within 24h of the events differed statistically, with those before death being the most deranged. Validation model AUCs were highest for predicting mortality (range 0.73-0.82), followed by CA (range 0.74-0.76), and lowest for predicting ICU transfer (range 0.68-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in vital signs before CA, ICU transfer, and death, the different models performed similarly for detecting each outcome. Mortality was the easiest outcome to predict and ICU transfer the most difficult. Studies should be interpreted with these differences in mind.
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
Authors: Haiyan Gao; Ann McDonnell; David A Harrison; Tracey Moore; Sheila Adam; Kathleen Daly; Lisa Esmonde; David R Goldhill; Gareth J Parry; Arash Rashidian; Christian P Subbe; Sheila Harvey Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brian H Cuthbertson; Massoud Boroujerdi; Laurin McKie; Lorna Aucott; Gordon Prescott Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gary B Smith; David R Prytherch; Paul E Schmidt; Peter I Featherstone; Bernie Higgins Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Michael A Devita; Rinaldo Bellomo; Kenneth Hillman; John Kellum; Armando Rotondi; Dan Teres; Andrew Auerbach; Wen-Jon Chen; Kathy Duncan; Gary Kenward; Max Bell; Michael Buist; Jack Chen; Julian Bion; Ann Kirby; Geoff Lighthall; John Ovreveit; R Scott Braithwaite; John Gosbee; Eric Milbrandt; Mimi Peberdy; Lucy Savitz; Lis Young; Maurene Harvey; Sanjay Galhotra Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Anthony J Bleyer; Sri Vidya; Gregory B Russell; Catherine M Jones; Leon Sujata; Pirouz Daeihagh; Donald Hire Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-07-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Seo Young Park; David O Meltzer; Jesse B Hall; Dana P Edelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Frank J Zadravecz; Linda Tien; Brian J Robertson-Dick; Trevor C Yuen; Nicole M Twu; Matthew M Churpek; Dana P Edelson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Alvin D Jeffery; Mary S Dietrich; Daniel Fabbri; Betsy Kennedy; Laurie L Novak; Joseph Coco; Lorraine C Mion Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Eliezer Bose; Lujie Chen; Gilles Clermont; Artur Dubrawski; Michael R Pinsky; Dianxu Ren; Leslie A Hoffman; Marilyn Hravnak Journal: Respir Care Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Marco A F Pimentel; Oliver C Redfern; James Malycha; Paul Meredith; David Prytherch; Jim Briggs; J Duncan Young; David A Clifton; Lionel Tarassenko; Peter J Watkinson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Harry van Goor; Maartje van Acht; Lucien Jlpg Engelen; Tom H van de Belt; Sebastian J H Bredie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Laura M Holdsworth; Samantha M R Kling; Margaret Smith; Nadia Safaeinili; Lisa Shieh; Stacie Vilendrer; Donn W Garvert; Marcy Winget; Steven M Asch; Ron C Li Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-07-07
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Harry van Goor; Bas Frietman; Lucien Jlpg Engelen; Cornelis Jhm van Laarhoven; Jan Smit; Sebastian Jh Bredie; Tom H van de Belt Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.773