Narayan Sharma1, René Schwendimann1,2, Olga Endrich3, Dietmar Ausserhofer1,4, Michael Simon5,6. 1. Institute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Patient Safety Office, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Directorate of Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. College of Health-Care Professions Claudiana, Bozen, Italy. 5. Institute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. m.simon@unibas.ch. 6. Nursing Research Unit, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. m.simon@unibas.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding how comorbidity measures contribute to patient mortality is essential both to describe patient health status and to adjust for risks and potential confounding. The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are well-established for risk adjustment and mortality prediction. Still, a different set of comorbidity weights might improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality. The present study, therefore, aimed to derive a set of new Swiss Elixhauser comorbidity weightings, to validate and compare them against those of the Charlson and Elixhauser-based van Walraven weights in an adult in-patient population-based cohort of general hospitals. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted with routine data of 102 Swiss general hospitals (2012-2017) for 6.09 million inpatient cases. To derive the Swiss weightings for the Elixhauser comorbidity index, we randomly halved the inpatient data and validated the results of part 1 alongside the established weighting systems in part 2, to predict in-hospital mortality. Charlson and van Walraven weights were applied to Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices. Derivation and validation of weightings were conducted with generalized additive models adjusted for age, gender and hospital types. RESULTS: Overall, the Elixhauser indices, c-statistic with Swiss weights (0.867, 95% CI, 0.865-0.868) and van Walraven's weights (0.863, 95% CI, 0.862-0.864) had substantial advantage over Charlson's weights (0.850, 95% CI, 0.849-0.851) and in the derivation and validation groups. The net reclassification improvement of new Swiss weights improved the predictive performance by 1.6% on the Elixhauser-van Walraven and 4.9% on the Charlson weights. CONCLUSIONS: All weightings confirmed previous results with the national dataset. The new Swiss weightings model improved slightly the prediction of in-hospital mortality in Swiss hospitals. The newly derive weights support patient population-based analysis of in-hospital mortality and seek country or specific cohort-based weightings.
BACKGROUND: Understanding how comorbidity measures contribute to patientmortality is essential both to describe patient health status and to adjust for risks and potential confounding. The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are well-established for risk adjustment and mortality prediction. Still, a different set of comorbidity weights might improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality. The present study, therefore, aimed to derive a set of new Swiss Elixhauser comorbidity weightings, to validate and compare them against those of the Charlson and Elixhauser-based van Walraven weights in an adult in-patient population-based cohort of general hospitals. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted with routine data of 102 Swiss general hospitals (2012-2017) for 6.09 million inpatient cases. To derive the Swiss weightings for the Elixhauser comorbidity index, we randomly halved the inpatient data and validated the results of part 1 alongside the established weighting systems in part 2, to predict in-hospital mortality. Charlson and van Walraven weights were applied to Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices. Derivation and validation of weightings were conducted with generalized additive models adjusted for age, gender and hospital types. RESULTS: Overall, the Elixhauser indices, c-statistic with Swiss weights (0.867, 95% CI, 0.865-0.868) and van Walraven's weights (0.863, 95% CI, 0.862-0.864) had substantial advantage over Charlson's weights (0.850, 95% CI, 0.849-0.851) and in the derivation and validation groups. The net reclassification improvement of new Swiss weights improved the predictive performance by 1.6% on the Elixhauser-van Walraven and 4.9% on the Charlson weights. CONCLUSIONS: All weightings confirmed previous results with the national dataset. The new Swiss weightings model improved slightly the prediction of in-hospital mortality in Swiss hospitals. The newly derive weights support patient population-based analysis of in-hospital mortality and seek country or specific cohort-based weightings.
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Carlo De Pietro; Paul Camenzind; Isabelle Sturny; Luca Crivelli; Suzanne Edwards-Garavoglia; Anne Spranger; Friedrich Wittenbecher; Wilm Quentin Journal: Health Syst Transit Date: 2015
Authors: Anna J Koné Pefoyo; Susan E Bronskill; Andrea Gruneir; Andrew Calzavara; Kednapa Thavorn; Yelena Petrosyan; Colleen J Maxwell; YuQing Bai; Walter P Wodchis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Adeel M Khan; Thita Chiasakul; Robert Redd; Rushad Patell; Ellen P McCarthy; Donna Neuberg; Jeffrey I Zwicker Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Robert B Schonberger; Amit Bardia; Feng Dai; George Michel; David Yanez; Jeptha P Curtis; Michelle T Vaughn; Matthew M Burg; Michael Mathis; Sachin Kheterpal; Shamsuddin Akhtar; Nirav Shah Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Leslie A Musshafen; Lamees El-Sadek; Seth T Lirette; Richard L Summers; Caroline Compretta; Thomas E Dobbs Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-03-01