Dataset Information

Development and validation of prediction models for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and readmission in COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk for resource-intensive outcomes including mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and readmission. Accurate outcome prognostication could facilitate hospital resource allocation. We develop and validate predictive models for each outcome using retrospective electronic health record data for COVID-19 patients treated between March 2 and May 6, 2020.

Materials and methods

For each outcome, we trained 3 classes of prediction models using clinical data for a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2)-positive patients (n = 2256). Cross-validation was used to select the best-performing models per the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic and precision-recall curves. Models were validated using a held-out cohort (n = 855). We measured each model's calibration and evaluated feature importances to interpret model output.

Results

The predictive performance for our selected models on the held-out cohort was as follows: area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve-MV 0.743 (95% CI, 0.682-0.812), RRT 0.847 (95% CI, 0.772-0.936), readmission 0.871 (95% CI, 0.830-0.917); area under the precision-recall curve-MV 0.137 (95% CI, 0.047-0.175), RRT 0.325 (95% CI, 0.117-0.497), readmission 0.504 (95% CI, 0.388-0.604). Predictions were well calibrated, and the most important features within each model were consistent with clinical intuition.

Discussion

Our models produce performant, well-calibrated, and interpretable predictions for COVID-19 patients at risk for the target outcomes. They demonstrate the potential to accurately estimate outcome prognosis in resource-constrained care sites managing COVID-19 patients.

Conclusions

We develop and validate prognostic models targeting MV, RRT, and readmission for hospitalized COVID-19 patients which produce accurate, interpretable predictions. Additional external validation studies are needed to further verify the generalizability of our results.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7989331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized clinical trials have failed to show benefit from increasing intensity of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury, but continue to be frequently used. In addition, intensive RRT is associated with an increase in adverse events potentially secondary to small solute losses, such as phosphate. We hypothesized that, compared with less-intensive RRT, intensive RRT would lead to longer duration of mechanical ventilation.Research questionDoes more-intensive renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury increase time to extubation from mechanical ventilation when compared with less-intensive therapy?Study design and methodsThe Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study was a randomized multicenter trial of more-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 mL/kg per hour) vs less-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis three times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 20 mL/kg per hour) RRT in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Of 1124 patients, 907 who were supported by mechanical ventilation on study initiation were included in this Cox-proportional hazards analysis. The primary outcome was the time to first successful extubation off mechanical ventilation.ResultsPatients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had a 33.3% lower hazard rate of successful extubation (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001) when compared with patients who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. Patients who were assigned to more-intensive RRT had, on average, 2.07 ventilator-free days, compared with 3.08 days in those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT (P < .001) over 14 days from start of the study.InterpretationCritically ill mechanically ventilated patients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared with those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. The reasons for this, such as excessive phosphate loss from more-intensive RRT, deserve further study to optimize the safety and effectiveness of CRRT delivery. This was a post hoc analysis of the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study; clinical trial registration of the original trial is NCT00076219.

Project description:BackgroundTimely recognition of respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation is crucial in managing patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reducing hospital mortality rate. A risk stratification tool could assist to avoid clinical deterioration of patients with COVID-19 and optimize allocation of scarce resources. Therefore, we aimed to develop a prediction model for early identification of patients with COVID-19 who may require mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe included patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in United States. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the records of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database in 2020. Model construction involved the use of the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multivariable logistic regression. The model's performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.ResultsThe training set comprised 73,957 patients (5,971 requiring mechanical ventilation), whereas the validation set included 10,428 (887 requiring mechanical ventilation). The prediction model incorporating age, sex, and 11 other comorbidities (deficiency anemias, congestive heart failure, coagulopathy, dementia, diabetes with chronic complications, complicated hypertension, neurological disorders unaffecting movement, obesity, pulmonary circulation disease, severe renal failure, and weight loss) demonstrated moderate discrimination (area under the curve, 0.715; 95% confidence interval, 0.709-0.722), good calibration (Brier score = 0.070, slope = 1, intercept = 0) and a clinical net benefit with a threshold probability ranged from 2 to 34% in the training set. Similar model's performances were observed in the validation set.ConclusionA robust prognostic model utilizing readily available predictors at hospital admission was developed for the early identification of patients with COVID-19 who may require mechanical ventilation. Application of this model could support clinical decision-making to optimize patient management and resource allocation.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 and compare their performance with the Respiratory rate-OXygenation (ROX) index.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and August 2021 at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ICU patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were screened. The exclusion criteria were patients who received IMV within the first 24 h of ICU admission, pregnancy, clinical decision for minimal end-of-life care and missing primary outcome data. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to select predictor variables. Models were based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and lowest AIC with significant p values. Assessment of predictive performance was done for discrimination and calibration. Areas under the curves (AUC)s were compared using DeLong's algorithm. Models were validated externally using an international database.ResultsOf 656 patients screened, 346 patients were included; 155 required IMV (44.8%), 191 did not (55.2%), and 207 patients were male (59.8%). According to the lowest AIC, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), temperature, respiratory effort signals, and leukocytes were identified as predictors of IMV at hospital admission. According to AIC with significant p values, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals were the best predictors of IMV; odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.46 (1.07-2.05), 0.81 (0.72-0.90), 9.13 (3.29-28.67), respectively. The ROX index at admission was lower in the IMV group than in the non-IMV group (7.3 [5.2-9.8] versus 9.6 [6.8-12.9], p < 0.001, respectively). In the external validation population, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROX index was 0.683 (accuracy 63%), the AIC model showed an AUC of 0.703 (accuracy 69%), and the lowest AIC model with significant p values had an AUC of 0.725 (accuracy 79%).ConclusionsIn the development population of ICU patients with COVID-19, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals predicted the need for IMV better than the ROX index. In the external validation population, although the AUCs did not differ significantly, the accuracy was higher when using SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals compared to the ROX index. This suggests that these variables may be more useful in predicting the need for IMV in ICU patients with COVID-19.ClinicaltrialsGov identifierNCT05663528.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide focused evaluation of predictive modeling of electronic medical record (EMR) data to predict 30 day hospital readmission.DesignSystematic review.Data sourceOvid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 2015 to January 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll studies of predictive models for 28 day or 30 day hospital readmission that used EMR data.Outcome measuresCharacteristics of included studies, methods of prediction, predictive features, and performance of predictive models.ResultsOf 4442 citations reviewed, 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen models predicted risk of readmission for all patients and 24 developed predictions for patient specific populations, with 13 of those being developed for patients with heart conditions. Except for two studies from the UK and Israel, all were from the US. The total sample size for each model ranged between 349 and 1 195 640. Twenty five models used a split sample validation technique. Seventeen of 41 studies reported C statistics of 0.75 or greater. Fifteen models used calibration techniques to further refine the model. Using EMR data enabled final predictive models to use a wide variety of clinical measures such as laboratory results and vital signs; however, use of socioeconomic features or functional status was rare. Using natural language processing, three models were able to extract relevant psychosocial features, which substantially improved their predictions. Twenty six studies used logistic or Cox regression models, and the rest used machine learning methods. No statistically significant difference (difference 0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.0 to 0.07) was found between average C statistics of models developed using regression methods (0.71, 0.68 to 0.73) and machine learning (0.74, 0.71 to 0.77).ConclusionsOn average, prediction models using EMR data have better predictive performance than those using administrative data. However, this improvement remains modest. Most of the studies examined lacked inclusion of socioeconomic features, failed to calibrate the models, neglected to conduct rigorous diagnostic testing, and did not discuss clinical impact.