Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are mortality predictors often used in clinical, administrative, and research applications. The Intermountain Mortality Risk Scores (IMRS) are validated mortality predictors that use all factors from the complete blood count and basic metabolic profile. How IMRS, Charlson, and Elixhauser relate to each other is unknown. METHODS:All inpatient admissions except obstetric patients at Intermountain Healthcare's 21 adult care hospitals from 2010-2014 (N = 197,680) were examined in a observational cohort study. The most recent admission was a patient's index encounter. Follow-up to 2018 used hospital death records, Utah death certificates, and the Social Security death master file. Three Charlson versions, 8 Elixhauser versions, and 3 IMRS formulations were evaluated in Cox regression and the one of each that was most predictive was used in dual risk score mortality analyses (in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality). RESULTS:Indices with the strongest mortality associations and selected for dual score study were the age-adjusted Charlson, the van Walraven version of the acute Elixhauser, and the 1-year IMRS. For in-hospital mortality, Charlson (c = 0.719; HR = 4.75, 95% CI = 4.45, 5.07), Elixhauser (c = 0.783; HR = 5.79, CI = 5.41, 6.19), and IMRS (c = 0.821; HR = 17.95, CI = 15.90, 20.26) were significant predictors (p<0.001) in univariate analyses. Dual score analysis of Charlson (HR = 1.79, CI = 1.66, 1.92) with IMRS (HR = 13.10, CI = 11.53, 14.87) and of Elixhauser (HR = 3.00, CI = 2.80, 3.21) with IMRS (HR = 11.42, CI = 10.09, 12.92) found significance for both scores in each model. Results were similar for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS:IMRS provided the strongest ability to predict mortality, adding to and attenuating the predictive ability of the Charlson and Elixhauser indices whose mortality associations remained statistically significant. IMRS uses common, standardized, objective laboratory data and should be further evaluated for integration into mortality risk evaluations.

SUBMITTER: Snow GL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7241706 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

Snow Gregory L GL Bledsoe Joseph R JR Butler Allison A Wilson Emily L EL Rea Susan S Majercik Sarah S Anderson Jeffrey L JL Horne Benjamin D BD

PloS one 20200521 5

<h4>Background</h4>The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are mortality predictors often used in clinical, administrative, and research applications. The Intermountain Mortality Risk Scores (IMRS) are validated mortality predictors that use all factors from the complete blood count and basic metabolic profile. How IMRS, Charlson, and Elixhauser relate to each other is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>All inpatient admissions except obstetric patients at Intermountain Healthcare's 21 adult care h ...[more]

PMID: 32437416

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Indices are the most widely used comorbidity assessment methods in medical research. Both methods are adapted for use with the International Classification of Diseases, which 10th revision (ICD-10) is used by over a hundred countries in the world. Available Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index calculating methods are limited to a few applications with command-line user interfaces, all requiring specific programming language skills. This study aims to use Microsoft Excel to develop a non-programming and ICD-10 based dataset calculator for Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index and to validate its results with R- and SAS-based methods.MethodsThe Excel-based dataset calculator was developed using the program's formulae, ICD-10 coding algorithms, and different weights of the Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Real, population-wide, nine-year spanning, index hip fracture data from the Estonian Health Insurance Fund was used for validating the calculator. The Excel-based calculator's output values and processing speed were compared to R- and SAS-based methods.ResultsA total of 11,491 hip fracture patients' comorbidities were used for validating the Excel-based calculator. The Excel-based calculator's results were consistent, revealing no discrepancies, with R- and SAS-based methods while comparing 192,690 and 353,265 output values of Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, respectively. The Excel-based calculator's processing speed was slower but differing only from a few seconds up to four minutes with datasets including 6250-200,000 patients.ConclusionsThis study proposes a novel, validated, and non-programming-based method for calculating Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index scores. As the comorbidity calculations can be conducted in Microsoft Excel's simple graphical point-and-click interface, the new method lowers the threshold for calculating these two widely used indices.Trial registrationretrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding 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.MethodsRetrospective 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionsAll 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.

Project description:BackgroundUncertainty regarding comorbid illness, and ability to tolerate aggressive therapy has led to minimal enrollment of elderly cancer patients into clinical trials and often substandard treatment. Increasingly, comorbid illness scales have proven useful in identifying subgroups of elderly patients who are more likely to tolerate and benefit from aggressive therapy. Unfortunately, the use of such scales has yet to be widely integrated into either clinical practice or clinical trials research.MethodsThis article reviews evidence for the validity of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) in oncology and provides a Microsoft Excel (MS Excel) Macro for the rapid and accurate calculation of CCI score. The interaction of comorbidity and malignant disease and the validation of the Charlson Index in oncology are discussed.ResultsThe CCI score is based on one year mortality data from internal medicine patients admitted to an inpatient setting and is the most widely used comorbidity index in oncology. An MS Excel Macro file was constructed for calculating the CCI score using Microsoft Visual Basic. The Macro is provided for download and dissemination. The CCI has been widely used and validated throughout the oncology literature and has demonstrated utility for most major cancers. The MS Excel CCI Macro provides a rapid method for calculating CCI score with or without age adjustments. The calculator removes difficulty in score calculation as a limitation for integration of the CCI into clinical research. The simple nature of the MS Excel CCI Macro and the CCI itself makes it ideal for integration into emerging electronic medical records systems.ConclusionsThe increasing elderly population and concurrent increase in oncologic disease has made understanding the interaction between age and comorbid illness on life expectancy increasingly important. The MS Excel CCI Macro provides a means of increasing the use of the CCI scale in clinical research with the ultimate goal of improving determination of optimal treatments for elderly cancer patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Predicting risk of premature death is one of the most basic tasks in medicine and public health, but has proven to be difficult over the long term even with the best prognostic models. One popular strategy has been to improve prognostic models with candidate genes and other novel biomarkers. However, the gains in predictive power have been modest and the costs have been high, leading to a demand for cost-effective alternatives. We conducted a proof-of-principle investigation to examine whether simple, cheap, and noninvasive paper-and-pencil measures of social class and personality phenotype could improve the performance of one of the most widely used prediction models for all-cause mortality, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). METHODS:We used data from baseline and 25-year mortality follow-up of the UK Health and Lifestyle Study cohort. In a subset of the cohort, we first identified 5 psychosocial factors highly predictive of mortality: income, education, type A personality, communalism (preference for the company of others), and "lie" scale (a measure of denial, putatively associated with ill health). We then examined the predictive performance of the CCI with and without these measures in a validation subsample. RESULTS:Across 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year time horizons, the psychosocially augmented CCI showed substantially better discrimination [area under the receiver-operating curves (95% confidence interval) from 0.83 (0.81-0.85) to 0.84 (0.83-0.86)] than the CCI [area under the receiver-operating curves from 0.74 (0.71-0.76) to 0.77 (0.76-0.79)]. These translated into net reclassification improvements from 27% (23%-31%) to 35% (32%-38%) of survivors and from 23% (17%-30%) to 34% (17%-30%) of decedents; and 23%-42% reductions in the Number Needed to Screen. Calibration improved at all time horizons except 25 years, where it was decreased. CONCLUSION:Widespread attempts to improve prognostic models might consider not only novel biomarkers, but also psychosocial questionnaire measures.

Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

Publications

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets