Jhuma Sankar1, Krishna Mohan Gulla2, U Vijaya Kumar2, Rakesh Lodha2, S K Kabra2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Correspondence to: Dr Jhuma Sankar, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics, AIIMS, New Delhi, India. jhumaji@gmail.com. 2. Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes using the Pediatric Index of Mortality-3 (PIM-3) model with PIM-2 model for children admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: We prospectively recorded the baseline characteristics, variables of PIM-3 and PIM-2 at admission, and outcomes of children ≤17 years over a period of 11 months. We used Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristics (AU-ROC) curves and Goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests to determine which of the two models had better discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: Out of 202 children enrolled, 69 (34%) died. Sepsis and pneumonia were the common admitting diagnoses. The AU-ROC was better for PIM-3 (0.75) as compared to PIM-2 (0.69; P=0.001). The GOF-P value was 0.001 for both models, that indicated poor calibration of both (P<0.001). The AU-ROC curves were acceptable across different age and diagnostic sub-groups. CONCLUSION: PIM-3 had better discrimination when compared to PIM-2 in our unit. Both models had poor calibration across deciles of risk.
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes using the Pediatric Index of Mortality-3 (PIM-3) model with PIM-2 model for children admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: We prospectively recorded the baseline characteristics, variables of PIM-3 and PIM-2 at admission, and outcomes of children ≤17 years over a period of 11 months. We used Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristics (AU-ROC) curves and Goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests to determine which of the two models had better discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: Out of 202 children enrolled, 69 (34%) died. Sepsis and pneumonia were the common admitting diagnoses. The AU-ROC was better for PIM-3 (0.75) as compared to PIM-2 (0.69; P=0.001). The GOF-P value was 0.001 for both models, that indicated poor calibration of both (P<0.001). The AU-ROC curves were acceptable across different age and diagnostic sub-groups. CONCLUSION: PIM-3 had better discrimination when compared to PIM-2 in our unit. Both models had poor calibration across deciles of risk.
Authors: Deyanira Quiñónez-López; Daniela Patino-Hernandez; César A Zuluaga; Ángel A García; Oscar M Muñoz-Velandia Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2020-11
Authors: Rania G Abdelatif; Montaser M Mohammed; Ramadan A Mahmoud; Mohamed A M Bakheet; Masafumi Gima; Satoshi Nakagawa Journal: Crit Care Res Pract Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Daniela Patino-Hernandez; Alba Deyanira Quiñonez López; César Augusto Zuluaga; Ángel Alberto García; Oscar Mauricio Muñoz-Velandia Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2020 Oct-Dec