Sandeep R Pagali1, Donna Miller2, Karen Fischer3, Darrell Schroeder3, Norman Egger2, Dennis M Manning2, Maria I Lapid4, Robert J Pignolo2, M Caroline Burton5. 1. Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: Pagali.sandeep@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a delirium risk-prediction tool that is applicable across different clinical patient populations and can predict the risk of delirium at admission to hospital. METHODS: This retrospective study included 120,764 patients admitted to Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, with age 50 and greater. The study group was randomized into a derivation cohort (n=80,000) and a validation cohort (n=40,764). Different risk factors were extracted and analyzed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) penalized logistic regression. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for Mayo Delirium Prediction (MDP) tool using derivation cohort was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], .846 to .855). Using the regression coefficients obtained from the derivation cohort, predicted probability of delirium was calculated for each patient in the validation cohort. For the validation cohort, AUROC was 0.84 (95% CI, .834 to .847). Patients were classified into 1 of the 3 risk groups, based on their predicted probability of delirium: low (≤5%), moderate (6% to 29%), and high (≥30%). In the derivation cohort, observed incidence of delirium was 1.7%, 12.8%, and 44.8% (low, moderate, and high risk, respectively), which is similar to the incidence rates in the validation cohort of 1.9%, 12.7%, and 46.3%. CONCLUSION: The Mayo Delirium Prediction tool was developed from a large heterogeneous patient population with good validation results and appears to be a reliable automated tool for delirium risk prediction with hospitalization. Further prospective validation studies are required.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a delirium risk-prediction tool that is applicable across different clinical patient populations and can predict the risk of delirium at admission to hospital. METHODS: This retrospective study included 120,764 patients admitted to Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, with age 50 and greater. The study group was randomized into a derivation cohort (n=80,000) and a validation cohort (n=40,764). Different risk factors were extracted and analyzed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) penalized logistic regression. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for Mayo Delirium Prediction (MDP) tool using derivation cohort was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], .846 to .855). Using the regression coefficients obtained from the derivation cohort, predicted probability of delirium was calculated for each patient in the validation cohort. For the validation cohort, AUROC was 0.84 (95% CI, .834 to .847). Patients were classified into 1 of the 3 risk groups, based on their predicted probability of delirium: low (≤5%), moderate (6% to 29%), and high (≥30%). In the derivation cohort, observed incidence of delirium was 1.7%, 12.8%, and 44.8% (low, moderate, and high risk, respectively), which is similar to the incidence rates in the validation cohort of 1.9%, 12.7%, and 46.3%. CONCLUSION: The Mayo Delirium Prediction tool was developed from a large heterogeneous patient population with good validation results and appears to be a reliable automated tool for delirium risk prediction with hospitalization. Further prospective validation studies are required.
Authors: Tammy T Hshieh; Jirong Yue; Esther Oh; Margaret Puelle; Sarah Dowal; Thomas Travison; Sharon K Inouye Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Joost Witlox; Lisa S M Eurelings; Jos F M de Jonghe; Kees J Kalisvaart; Piet Eikelenboom; Willem A van Gool Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lucas Oliveira J E Silva; Jessica A Stanich; Molly M Jeffery; Aidan F Mullan; Susan M Bower; Ronna L Campbell; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Robert J Pignolo; Fernanda Bellolio Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 5.221