Literature DB >> 8062556

Mortality probability models for patients in the intensive care unit for 48 or 72 hours: a prospective, multicenter study.

S Lemeshow1, J Klar, D Teres, J S Avrunin, S H Gehlbach, J Rapoport, M Rué.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop models in the Mortality Probability Model (MPM II) system to estimate the probability of hospital mortality at 48 and 72 hrs in the intensive care unit (ICU), and to test whether the 24-hr Mortality Probability Model (MPM24), developed for use at 24 hrs in the ICU, can be used on a daily basis beyond 24 hrs.
DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter study to develop and validate models, using a cohort of consecutive admissions.
SETTING: Six adult medical and surgical ICUs in Massachusetts and New York adjusted to reflect 137 ICUs in 12 countries. PATIENTS: Consecutive admissions (n = 6,290) to the Massachusetts/New York ICUs were studied. Of these patients, 3,023 and 2,233 patients remained in the ICU and had complete data at 48 and 72 hrs, respectively. Patients < 18 yrs of age, burn patients, coronary care patients, and cardiac surgical patients were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURE: Vital status at the time of hospital discharge.
RESULTS: The models consist of five variables measured at the time of ICU admission and eight variables ascertained at 24-hr intervals. The 24-hr model demonstrated poor calibration and discrimination at 48 and 72 hrs. The newly developed 48- and 72-hr models--MPM48 and MPM72--contain the same 13 variables and coefficients as the MPM24. The models differ only in their constant terms, which increase in a manner that reflects the increasing probability of mortality with increasing length of stay in the ICU. These constant terms were adjusted by a factor determined from the relationship between the data from the six Massachusetts and New York ICUs and a more extensive data set, from which the ICU admission Mortality Probability Model (MPM0) and MPM24 were developed. This latter data set was assembled from ICUs in 12 countries. The MPM48 and MPM72 calibrated and discriminated well, based on goodness-of-fit tests and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
CONCLUSIONS: Models developed for use among ICU patients at one time period are not transferable without modification to other time periods. The MPM48 and MPM72 calibrated well to their respective time periods, and they are intended for use at specific points in time. The increasing constant terms and associated increase in the probability of hospital mortality exemplify a common clinical adage that if a patient's clinical profile stays the same, he or she is actually getting worse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8062556     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199409000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  27 in total

Review 1.  [Scoring systems in the intensive care unit].

Authors:  K Lewandowski; M Lewandowski
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  ICU acuity: real-time models versus daily models.

Authors:  Caleb W Hug; Peter Szolovits
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2009-11-14

Review 3.  The use of severity scores in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Jean-Roger Le Gall
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-10-22       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Organ dysfunction during sepsis.

Authors:  Suveer Singh; Timothy W Evans
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-02-11       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  The influence of missing components of the Acute Physiology Score of APACHE III on the measurement of ICU performance.

Authors:  Bekele Afessa; Mark T Keegan; Ognjen Gajic; Rolf D Hubmayr; Steve G Peters
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Adding insult to injury: the prognostic value of early secondary insults for survival after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  D F Signorini; P J Andrews; P A Jones; J M Wardlaw; J D Miller
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  The influence of length of stay in the ICU on power of discrimination of a multipurpose severity score (SAPS). ARCHIDIA.

Authors:  A Sicignano; C Carozzi; D Giudici; G Merli; S Arlati; M Pulici
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  A scenario-based, randomized trial of patient values and functional prognosis on intensivist intent to discuss withdrawing life support.

Authors:  Alison E Turnbull; Jenna R Krall; A Parker Ruhl; J Randall Curtis; Scott D Halpern; Bryan M Lau; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Outcome prediction for individual intensive care patients: useful, misused, or abused?

Authors:  S Lemeshow; J Klar; D Teres
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Predicting survival using simple clinical variables: a case study in traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  D F Signorini; P J Andrews; P A Jones; J M Wardlaw; J D Miller
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 10.154

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.