Dataset Information

Development and validation of a score to predict mortality in ICU patients with sepsis: a multicenter retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early and accurate identification of septic patients at high risk for ICU mortality can help clinicians make optimal clinical decisions and improve the patients' outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate (internally and externally) a mortality prediction score for sepsis following admission in the ICU.

Methods

We extracted data retrospectively regarding adult septic patients from one teaching hospital in Wenzhou, China and a large multi-center critical care database from the USA. Demographic data, vital signs, laboratory values, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Through multivariable logistic regression, a mortality prediction score for sepsis was developed and validated.

Results

Four thousand two hundred and thirty six patients in the development cohort and 8359 patients in three validation cohorts. The Prediction of Sepsis Mortality in ICU (POSMI) score included age ≥ 50 years, temperature < 37 °C, Respiratory rate > 35 breaths/min, MAP ≤ 50 mmHg, SpO2 < 90%, albumin ≤ 2 g/dL, bilirubin ≥ 0.8 mg/dL, lactate ≥ 4.2 mmol/L, BUN ≥ 21 mg/dL, mechanical ventilation, hepatic failure and metastatic cancer. In addition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the development cohort was 0.831 (95% CI, 0.813-0.850) while the AUCs ranged from 0.798 to 0.829 in the three validation cohorts. Moreover, the POSMI score had a higher AUC than both the SOFA and APACHE IV scores. Notably, the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test results and calibration curves suggested good calibration in the development and validation cohorts. Additionally, the POSMI score still exhibited excellent discrimination and calibration following sensitivity analysis. With regard to clinical usefulness, the decision curve analysis (DCA) of POSMI showed a higher net benefit than SOFA and APACHE IV in the development cohort.

Conclusion

POSMI was validated to be an effective tool for predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Weng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319895 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly and reliable identification of patients with sepsis who are at high risk of mortality is important to improve clinical outcomes. However, 3 major barriers to artificial intelligence (AI) models, including the lack of interpretability, the difficulty in generalizability, and the risk of automation bias, hinder the widespread adoption of AI models for use in clinical practice.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate (internally and externally) a conformal predictor of sepsis mortality risk in patients who are critically ill, leveraging AI-assisted prediction modeling. The proposed approach enables explaining the model output and assessing its confidence level.MethodsWe retrospectively extracted data on adult patients with sepsis from a database collected in a teaching hospital at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for model training and internal validation. A large multicenter critical care database from the Philips eICU Research Institute was used for external validation. A total of 103 clinical features were extracted from the first day after admission. We developed an AI model using gradient-boosting machines to predict the mortality risk of sepsis and used Mondrian conformal prediction to estimate the prediction uncertainty. The Shapley additive explanation method was used to explain the model.ResultsA total of 16,746 (80%) patients from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center were used to train the model. When tested on the internal validation population of 4187 (20%) patients, the model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.858 (95% CI 0.845-0.871), which was reduced to 0.800 (95% CI 0.789-0.811) when externally validated on 10,362 patients from the Philips eICU database. At a specified confidence level of 90% for the internal validation cohort the percentage of error predictions (n=438) out of all predictions (n=4187) was 10.5%, with 1229 (29.4%) predictions requiring clinician review. In contrast, the AI model without conformal prediction made 1449 (34.6%) errors. When externally validated, more predictions (n=4004, 38.6%) were flagged for clinician review due to interdatabase heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the model still produced significantly lower error rates compared to the point predictions by AI (n=1221, 11.8% vs n=4540, 43.8%). The most important predictors identified in this predictive model were Acute Physiology Score III, age, urine output, vasopressors, and pulmonary infection. Clinically relevant risk factors contributing to a single patient were also examined to show how the risk arose.ConclusionsBy combining model explanation and conformal prediction, AI-based systems can be better translated into medical practice for clinical decision-making.

Project description:AbstractAs severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Project description:BackgroundThe sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has poor discriminative ability for death in severely or critically ill patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Our aim was to create a new score powered to predict 28-day mortality.MethodsRetrospective, observational, bicentric cohort study including 425 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, acute respiratory failure and SOFA score ≥ 2 requiring ICU admission for ≥72 h. Factors with independent predictive value for 28-day mortality were identified after stepwise Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression. Based on the regression coefficients, an equation was computed representing the COVID-SOFA score. Discriminative ability was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, concordance statistics and precision-recall curves. This score was internally validated.ResultsMedian (Q1-Q3) age for the whole sample was 64 [55-72], with 290 (68.2%) of patients being male. The 28-day mortality was 54.58%. After stepwise Cox PH regression, age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and SOFA score remained in the final model. The following equation was computed: COVID-SOFA score = 10 × [0.037 × Age + 0.347 × ln(NLR) + 0.16 × SOFA]. Harrell's C-index for the COVID-SOFA score was higher than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality (0.697 [95% CI; 0.662-0.731] versus 0.639 [95% CI: 0.605-0.672]). Subsequently, the prediction error rate was improved up to 16.06%. Area under the ROC (AUROC) was significantly higher for the COVID-SOFA score compared with the SOFA score for 28-day mortality: 0.796 [95% CI: 0.755-0.833] versus 0.699 [95% CI: 0.653-0.742, p < 0.001]. Better predictive value was observed with repeated measurement at 48 h after ICU admission.ConclusionsThe COVID-SOFA score is better than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality prediction. Improvement in predictive value seen with measurements at 48 h after ICU admission suggests that the COVID-SOFA score can be used in a repetitive manner. External validation is required to support these results.

Project description:Background: Mortality from multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens is an urgent healthcare crisis worldwide. At present we do not have any simplified screening tools to predict the risk of mortality associated with MDR infections. The aim of this study was to develop a screening tool to predict mortality in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms. Methods: A retrospective cohort study to evaluate mortality risks in patients with MDR infections was conducted at Phrae Hospital. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to classify possible risk factors. The model performance was internally validated utilizing the mean of three measures of discrimination corrected by the optimism using a 1000-bootstrap procedure. The coefficients were transformed into item scores by dividing each coefficient with the lowest coefficient and then rounding to the most adjacent number. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was used to determine the performance of the model. Results: Between 1 October 2018 and 30 September 2020, a total of 504 patients with MDR infections were enrolled. The ICU-SEPSA score composed of eight clinical risk factors: 1) immunocompromised host, 2) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3) urinary tract infection, 4) sepsis, 5) placement of endotracheal tube, 6) pneumonia, 7) septic shock, and 8) use of antibiotics within the past 3 months. The model showed good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 19.27; p-value = 0.50) and good discrimination after optimism correction (AuROC 84.6%, 95% confidence interval [Cl]: 81.0%–88.0%). The positive likelihood ratio of low risk (score ≤ 5) and high risk (score ≥ 8) were 2.07 (95% CI: 1.74–2.46) and 12.35 (95% CI: 4.90–31.13), respectively. Conclusion: A simplified predictive scoring tool wad developed to predict mortality in patients with MDR infections. Due to a single-study design of this study, external validation of the results before applying in other clinical practice settings is warranted.