Zongyang Mou1, Laura N Godat, Robert El-Kareh, Allison E Berndtson, Jay J Doucet, Todd W Costantini. 1. From the Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Burns and Acute Care Surgery (Z.M., L.N.G., A.E.B., J.J.D., T.W.C.), and Department of Medicine (R.E.-K.), University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient outcome prediction models are underused in clinical practice because of lack of integration with real-time patient data. The electronic health record (EHR) has the ability to use machine learning (ML) to develop predictive models. While an EHR ML model has been developed to predict clinical deterioration, it has yet to be validated for use in trauma. We hypothesized that the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) would predict mortality and unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a trauma registry was used to identify patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center for >24 hours from October 2019 to July 2020. We evaluated the performance of the EDI, which is constructed from 125 objective patient measures within the EHR, in predicting mortality and unplanned ICU admissions. We performed a 5 to 1 match on age because it is a major component of EDI, then examined the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and benchmarked it against Injury Severity Score (ISS) and new injury severity score (NISS). RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1,325 patients admitted with a mean age of 52.5 years and 91% following blunt injury. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2%, and unplanned ICU admission rate was 2.6%. In predicting mortality, the maximum EDI within 24 hours of admission had an AUROC of 0.98 compared with 0.89 of ISS and 0.91 of NISS. For unplanned ICU admission, the EDI slope within 24 hours of ICU admission had a modest performance with an AUROC of 0.66. CONCLUSION: Epic Deterioration Index appears to perform strongly in predicting in-patient mortality similarly to ISS and NISS. In addition, it can be used to predict unplanned ICU admissions. This study helps validate the use of this real-time EHR ML-based tool, suggesting that EDI should be incorporated into the daily care of trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.
INTRODUCTION: Patient outcome prediction models are underused in clinical practice because of lack of integration with real-time patient data. The electronic health record (EHR) has the ability to use machine learning (ML) to develop predictive models. While an EHR ML model has been developed to predict clinical deterioration, it has yet to be validated for use in trauma. We hypothesized that the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) would predict mortality and unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a trauma registry was used to identify patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center for >24 hours from October 2019 to July 2020. We evaluated the performance of the EDI, which is constructed from 125 objective patient measures within the EHR, in predicting mortality and unplanned ICU admissions. We performed a 5 to 1 match on age because it is a major component of EDI, then examined the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and benchmarked it against Injury Severity Score (ISS) and new injury severity score (NISS). RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1,325 patients admitted with a mean age of 52.5 years and 91% following blunt injury. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2%, and unplanned ICU admission rate was 2.6%. In predicting mortality, the maximum EDI within 24 hours of admission had an AUROC of 0.98 compared with 0.89 of ISS and 0.91 of NISS. For unplanned ICU admission, the EDI slope within 24 hours of ICU admission had a modest performance with an AUROC of 0.66. CONCLUSION: Epic Deterioration Index appears to perform strongly in predicting in-patient mortality similarly to ISS and NISS. In addition, it can be used to predict unplanned ICU admissions. This study helps validate the use of this real-time EHR ML-based tool, suggesting that EDI should be incorporated into the daily care of trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.
Authors: J Wayne Meredith; Gregory Evans; Patrick D Kilgo; Ellen MacKenzie; Turner Osler; Gerald McGwin; Stephen Cohn; Thomas Esposito; Thomas Gennarelli; Michael Hawkins; Charles Lucas; Charles Mock; Michael Rotondo; Loring Rue; Howard R Champion Journal: J Trauma Date: 2002-10
Authors: Leonie de Munter; Suzanne Polinder; Koen W W Lansink; Maryse C Cnossen; Ewout W Steyerberg; Mariska A C de Jongh Journal: Injury Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Shang A Loh; Caron B Rockman; Christine Chung; Thomas S Maldonado; Mark A Adelman; Neal S Cayne; H Leon Pachter; Firas F Mussa Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Patricia Kipnis; Benjamin J Turk; David A Wulf; Juan Carlos LaGuardia; Vincent Liu; Matthew M Churpek; Santiago Romero-Brufau; Gabriel J Escobar Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Karandeep Singh; Thomas S Valley; Shengpu Tang; Benjamin Y Li; Fahad Kamran; Michael W Sjoding; Jenna Wiens; Erkin Otles; John P Donnelly; Melissa Y Wei; Jonathon P McBride; Jie Cao; Carleen Penoza; John Z Ayanian; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07