Frank J Zadravecz1, Linda Tien2, Brian J Robertson-Dick3, Trevor C Yuen1, Nicole M Twu1, Matthew M Churpek4, Dana P Edelson1. 1. Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 4. Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Altered mental status is a significant predictor of mortality in inpatients. Several scales exist to characterize mental status, including the AVPU (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive) scale, which is used in many early-warning scores in the general-ward setting. The use of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is not well established in this population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting inpatient mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single, urban, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients on the general wards. MEASUREMENTS: Nurses recorded GCS and RASS on consecutive adult hospitalizations. AVPU was extracted from the eye subscale of the GCS. We compared the accuracies of each scale for predicting in-hospital mortality within 24 hours of a mental-status observation using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: There were 295,974 paired observations of GCS and RASS obtained from 26,873 admissions; 417 (1.6%) resulted in in-hospital death. GCS and RASS more accurately predicted mortality than AVPU (AUC 0.80 and 0.82, respectively, vs 0.73; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Simultaneous use of GCS and RASS produced an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.87, P < 0.001 when compared to all 3 scales). CONCLUSIONS: In ward patients, both GCS and RASS were significantly more accurate predictors of mortality than AVPU. In addition, combining GCS and RASS was more accurate than any scale alone. Routine tracking of GCS and/or RASS on general wards may improve the accuracy of detecting clinical deterioration.
BACKGROUND: Altered mental status is a significant predictor of mortality in inpatients. Several scales exist to characterize mental status, including the AVPU (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive) scale, which is used in many early-warning scores in the general-ward setting. The use of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is not well established in this population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting inpatient mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single, urban, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients on the general wards. MEASUREMENTS: Nurses recorded GCS and RASS on consecutive adult hospitalizations. AVPU was extracted from the eye subscale of the GCS. We compared the accuracies of each scale for predicting in-hospital mortality within 24 hours of a mental-status observation using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: There were 295,974 paired observations of GCS and RASS obtained from 26,873 admissions; 417 (1.6%) resulted in in-hospital death. GCS and RASS more accurately predicted mortality than AVPU (AUC 0.80 and 0.82, respectively, vs 0.73; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Simultaneous use of GCS and RASS produced an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.87, P < 0.001 when compared to all 3 scales). CONCLUSIONS: In ward patients, both GCS and RASS were significantly more accurate predictors of mortality than AVPU. In addition, combining GCS and RASS was more accurate than any scale alone. Routine tracking of GCS and/or RASS on general wards may improve the accuracy of detecting clinical deterioration.
Authors: Brenda Truman Pun; Sharon M Gordon; Josh F Peterson; Ayumi K Shintani; James C Jackson; Julie Foss; Sharon D Harding; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-06 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: Frances M Yang; Edward R Marcantonio; Sharon K Inouye; Dan K Kiely; James L Rudolph; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Dan K Kiely; Richard N Jones; Margaret A Bergmann; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Erik M Angles; Thomas N Robinson; Walter L Biffl; Jeff Johnson; Marc Moss; Zung V Tran; Ernest E Moore Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Josh F Peterson; Brenda T Pun; Robert S Dittus; Jason W W Thomason; James C Jackson; Ayumi K Shintani; E Wesley Ely Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.562
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: David E Hamilton; Valerie G Press; Nicole M Twu; Trevor C Yuen; Crystal N Azu; Matthew M Churpek; Dana P Edelson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Lucien Wasingya-Kasereka; Pauline Nabatanzi; Immaculate Nakitende; Joan Nabiryo; Teopista Namujwiga; John Kellett Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-12-07