Michael Rothman1, Mitchell Levy2, R Philip Dellinger3, Stephen L Jones4, Robert L Fogerty5, Kirk G Voelker6, Barry Gross7, Albert Marchetti8, Joseph Beals9. 1. PeraHealth, Inc, 6302 Fairview Rd, Suite 310, Charlotte, NC, 28203. Electronic address: mrothman@perahealth.com. 2. Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI. Electronic address: mitchell_levy@brown.edu. 3. Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Cooper University Health, Camden, NJ. Electronic address: dellinger-phil@cooperhealth.edu. 4. Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, TX. Electronic address: sljones2@houstonmethodist.org. 5. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: robert.fogerty@yale.edu. 6. Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Sarasota, FL. Electronic address: kirk-voelker@smh.com. 7. Riverside Regional Medical Center, Newport News, VA. Electronic address: barry.gross@rivhs.com. 8. Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, MedERA, Inc., Newark, NJ. Electronic address: albertmarchetti@yahoo.com. 9. PeraHealth, Inc, 6302 Fairview Rd, Suite 310, Charlotte, NC, 28203. Electronic address: jbeals@perahealth.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early identification and treatment improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Current screening tools are limited. We present a new approach, recognizing that sepsis patients comprise 2 distinct and unequal populations: patients with sepsis present on admission (85%) and patients who develop sepsis in the hospital (15%) with mortality rates of 12% and 35%, respectively. METHODS: Models are developed and tested based on 258 836 adult inpatient records from 4 hospitals. A "present on admission" model identifies patients admitted to a hospital with sepsis, and a "not present on admission" model predicts postadmission onset. Inputs include common clinical measurements and the Rothman Index. Sepsis was determined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. RESULTS: For sepsis present on admission, area under the curves ranged from 0.87 to 0.91. Operating points chosen to yield 75% and 50% sensitivity achieve positive predictive values of 17% to 25% and 29% to 40%, respectively. For sepsis not present on admission, at 65% sensitivity, positive predictive values ranged from 10% to 20% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This approach yields good to excellent discriminatory performance among adult inpatients for predicting sepsis present on admission or developed within the hospital and may aid in the timely delivery of care.
PURPOSE: Early identification and treatment improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Current screening tools are limited. We present a new approach, recognizing that sepsispatients comprise 2 distinct and unequal populations: patients with sepsis present on admission (85%) and patients who develop sepsis in the hospital (15%) with mortality rates of 12% and 35%, respectively. METHODS: Models are developed and tested based on 258 836 adult inpatient records from 4 hospitals. A "present on admission" model identifies patients admitted to a hospital with sepsis, and a "not present on admission" model predicts postadmission onset. Inputs include common clinical measurements and the Rothman Index. Sepsis was determined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. RESULTS: For sepsis present on admission, area under the curves ranged from 0.87 to 0.91. Operating points chosen to yield 75% and 50% sensitivity achieve positive predictive values of 17% to 25% and 29% to 40%, respectively. For sepsis not present on admission, at 65% sensitivity, positive predictive values ranged from 10% to 20% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This approach yields good to excellent discriminatory performance among adult inpatients for predicting sepsis present on admission or developed within the hospital and may aid in the timely delivery of care.
Authors: Daniel E Leisman; Catalina Angel; Sandra M Schneider; Jason A D'Amore; John K D'Angelo; Martin E Doerfler Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Raphael Kazidule Kayambankadzanja; Carl Otto Schell; Felix Namboya; Tamara Phiri; Grace Banda-Katha; Samson Kwazizira Mndolo; Andy Bauleni; Markus Castegren; Tim Baker Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Andrew D Kleven; Austin H Middleton; Ziynet Nesibe Kesimoglu; Isaac C Slagel; Ashley E Creager; Ryan Hanson; Serdar Bozdag; Adam I Edelstein Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Shannon M Fernando; Bram Rochwerg; Peter M Reardon; Kednapa Thavorn; Andrew J E Seely; Jeffrey J Perry; Douglas P Barnaby; Peter Tanuseputro; Kwadwo Kyeremanteng Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Zina M Ibrahim; Honghan Wu; Ahmed Hamoud; Lukas Stappen; Richard J B Dobson; Andrea Agarossi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ryan P McLynn; Taylor D Ottesen; Nathaniel T Ondeck; Jonathan J Cui; Lee E Rubin; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.176