OBJECTIVES: Early warning scores are clinical tools capable of identifying prehospital patients with high risk of deterioration. We sought here to contrast the validity of seven early warning scores in the prehospital setting and specifically, to evaluate the predictive value of each score to determine early deterioration-risk during the hospital stay, including mortality at one, two, three and seven- days since the index event. Methods: A prospective multicenter observational based-ambulance study of patients treated by six advanced life support emergency services and transferred to five Spanish hospitals between October 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We collected demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Seven risk score were constructed based on the analysis of prehospital variables associated with death within one, two, three and seven days since the index event. The area under the receiver operating characteristics was used to determine the discriminant validity of each early warning score. Results: A total of 3,273 participants with acute diseases were accurately linked. The median age was 69 years (IQR, 54-81 years), 1,348 (41.1%) were females. The overall mortality rate for patients in the study cohort ranged from 3.5% for first-day mortality (114 cases), to 7% for seven-day mortality (228 cases). The scores with the best performances for one-day mortality were Vitalpac Early Warning Score with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.873 (95% CI: 0.81-0.9), for two-day mortality, Triage Early Warning Score with an AUROC of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.83-0.9), for three and seven-days mortality the Modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score with an AUROC of 0.857 (0.82-0.89) and 0.833 (95% CI: 0.8-0.86). In general, there were no significant differences between the scores analyzed. Conclusions: All the analyzed scores have a good predictive capacity for early mortality, and no statistically significant differences between them were found. The National Early Warning Score 2, at the clinical level, has certain advantages. Early warning scores are clinical tools that can help in the complex decision-making processes during critical moments, so their use should be generalized in all emergency medical services.
OBJECTIVES: Early warning scores are clinical tools capable of identifying prehospital patients with high risk of deterioration. We sought here to contrast the validity of seven early warning scores in the prehospital setting and specifically, to evaluate the predictive value of each score to determine early deterioration-risk during the hospital stay, including mortality at one, two, three and seven- days since the index event. Methods: A prospective multicenter observational based-ambulance study of patients treated by six advanced life support emergency services and transferred to five Spanish hospitals between October 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We collected demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables. Seven risk score were constructed based on the analysis of prehospital variables associated with death within one, two, three and seven days since the index event. The area under the receiver operating characteristics was used to determine the discriminant validity of each early warning score. Results: A total of 3,273 participants with acute diseases were accurately linked. The median age was 69 years (IQR, 54-81 years), 1,348 (41.1%) were females. The overall mortality rate for patients in the study cohort ranged from 3.5% for first-day mortality (114 cases), to 7% for seven-day mortality (228 cases). The scores with the best performances for one-day mortality were Vitalpac Early Warning Score with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.873 (95% CI: 0.81-0.9), for two-day mortality, Triage Early Warning Score with an AUROC of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.83-0.9), for three and seven-days mortality the Modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score with an AUROC of 0.857 (0.82-0.89) and 0.833 (95% CI: 0.8-0.86). In general, there were no significant differences between the scores analyzed. Conclusions: All the analyzed scores have a good predictive capacity for early mortality, and no statistically significant differences between them were found. The National Early Warning Score 2, at the clinical level, has certain advantages. Early warning scores are clinical tools that can help in the complex decision-making processes during critical moments, so their use should be generalized in all emergency medical services.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical decision-making; critical care; early warning score; emergency medical service; sentinel health event
Authors: Francisco Martín-Rodríguez; Laura Melero-Guijarro; Guillermo J Ortega; Ancor Sanz-García; Teresa de la Torre de Dios; Jesús Álvarez Manzanares; José L Martín-Conty; Miguel A Castro Villamor; Juan F Delgado Benito; Raúl López-Izquierdo Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Amaya Burgos-Esteban; Vicente Gea-Caballero; Patricia Marín-Maicas; Azucena Santillán-García; María de Valvanera Cordón-Hurtado; Elena Marqués-Sule; Marta Giménez-Luzuriaga; Raúl Juárez-Vela; Juan Luis Sanchez-Gonzalez; Jorge García-Criado; Iván Santolalla-Arnedo Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Rebecca E Cash; Robert A Swor; Margaret Samuels-Kalow; David Eisenbrey; Anjali J Kaimal; Carlos A Camargo Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Scott S Bourn; Remle P Crowe; Antonio R Fernandez; Sarah E Matt; Andrew L Brown; Andrew B Hawthorn; J Brent Myers Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-06-29