Literature DB >> 8062557

Daily prognostic estimates for critically ill adults in intensive care units: results from a prospective, multicenter, inception cohort analysis.

D P Wagner1, W A Knaus, F E Harrell, J E Zimmerman, C Watts.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop daily prognostic estimates for individual patients treated in adult intensive care units (ICU).
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, inception cohort analysis.
SETTING: Forty-two ICUs at 40 U.S. hospitals with > 200 beds including 20 ICUs in tertiary care centers with major teaching activities. PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of 17,440 ICU admissions.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A series of multivariate equations were developed using the patient's primary reason for ICU admission, age, chronic health status, treatment before ICU admission, admission Acute Physiology Score, current day Acute Physiology Score, and change between the current and previous day's Acute Physiology Score. The equations were used to create daily risk predictions and cross-validated within the 17,440-patient sample. The single most important factor determining daily risk of hospital death during each of the initial 7 days of ICU care was the current day's Acute Physiology Score of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score. The admission Acute Physiology Score and change from previous to current day's Acute Physiology Score were also important, as were ICU admission diagnosis, age, chronic health status, and treatment before ICU admission. Equations incorporating these risk factors had receiver operating characteristics areas ranging from 0.9 on the first ICU day to 0.84 for patients remaining in the ICU for 7 days. The percent of cases with cross-validated predicted risks over 90% increased from 2.3% (n = 406) of cases on day 1 to 9% of all patients remaining in the ICU on ICU day 7 (n = 218). The 1,033 patients who had a daily risk estimate of > 90% during any of their initial 7 ICU days had a 90% mortality rate and represented 47% of all ICU deaths and 31% of the total number of hospital deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Equations using initial and repeated physiologic measurements provide a high degree of explanatory power for subsequent hospital mortality rate. These daily prognostic estimates deserve evaluation for their potential role in improving the process and outcome from clinical decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8062557     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199409000-00004

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


  27 in total

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

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

Review 2.  [Scoring systems for daily assessment in intensive care medicine. Overview, current possibilities and demands on new developments].

Authors:  F Brenck; B Hartmann; M Mogk; A Junger
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Mortality probability model III and simplified acute physiology score II: assessing their value in predicting length of stay and comparison to APACHE IV.

Authors:  Eduard E Vasilevskis; Michael W Kuzniewicz; Brian A Cason; Rondall K Lane; Mitzi L Dean; Ted Clay; Deborah J Rennie; Eric Vittinghoff; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  On the dynamics of dying.

Authors:  J Engelberg
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun

5.  A simple classification model for hospital mortality in patients with acute lung injury managed with lung protective ventilation.

Authors:  Lisa M Brown; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Roy G Brower; B Taylor Thompson; William Checkley
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Outcome prediction for patients with cirrhosis of the liver in a medical ICU: a comparison of the APACHE scores and liver-specific scoringsystems.

Authors:  C A Zauner; R C Apsner; A Kranz; L Kramer; C Madl; B Schneider; B Schneeweiss; K Ratheiser; F Stockenhuber; K Lenz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  [Value of the Hannover Intensive Score (HIS) in internal medicine intensive care].

Authors:  A von Bierbrauer; C Burchardt; H H Müller; P von Wichert
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-09-15

8.  Making ICU prognostication patient centered: is there a role for dynamic information?

Authors:  William J Ehlenbach; Colin R Cooke
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  A predictive model for the early identification of patients at risk for a prolonged intensive care unit length of stay.

Authors:  Andrew A Kramer; Jack E Zimmerman
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Use of the quasi-experimental sequential cohort design in the Study of Patient-Nurse Effectiveness with Assisted Communication Strategies (SPEACS).

Authors:  Mary Beth Happ; Susan Sereika; Kathryn Garrett; Judith Tate
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.