Dataset Information

Development of a new score for early mortality prediction in trauma ICU patients: RETRASCORE.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severity scores are commonly used for outcome adjustment and benchmarking of trauma care provided. No specific models performed only with critically ill patients are available. Our objective was to develop a new score for early mortality prediction in trauma ICU patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective study using the Spanish Trauma ICU registry (RETRAUCI) 2015-2019. Patients were divided and analysed into the derivation (2015-2017) and validation sets (2018-2019). We used as candidate variables to be associated with mortality those available in RETRAUCI that could be collected in the first 24 h after ICU admission. Using logistic regression methodology, a simple score (RETRASCORE) was created with points assigned to each selected variable. The performance of the model was carried out according to global measures, discrimination and calibration.

Results

The analysis included 9465 patients: derivation set 5976 and validation set 3489. Thirty-day mortality was 12.2%. The predicted probability of 30-day mortality was determined by the following equation: 1/(1 + exp (- y)), where y = 0.598 (Age 50-65) + 1.239 (Age 66-75) + 2.198 (Age > 75) + 0.349 (PRECOAG) + 0.336 (Pre-hospital intubation) + 0.662 (High-risk mechanism) + 0.950 (unilateral mydriasis) + 3.217 (bilateral mydriasis) + 0.841 (Glasgow ≤ 8) + 0.495 (MAIS-Head) - 0.271 (MAIS-Thorax) + 1.148 (Haemodynamic failure) + 0.708 (Respiratory failure) + 0.567 (Coagulopathy) + 0.580 (Mechanical ventilation) + 0.452 (Massive haemorrhage) - 5.432. The AUROC was 0.913 (0.903-0.923) in the derivation set and 0.929 (0.918-0.940) in the validation set.

Conclusions

The newly developed RETRASCORE is an early, easy-to-calculate and specific score to predict in-hospital mortality in trauma ICU patients. Although it has achieved adequate internal validation, it must be externally validated.

SUBMITTER: Servia L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8650319 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith an increasing number of motor vehicle crashes, there is an urgent need in emergency departments (EDs) to assess patients with multiple trauma quickly, easily, and reliably. Trauma severity can range from a minor to major threats to life or bodily function. In-hospital mortality and trauma severity prediction in such cases is crucial in the ED for the management of multiple trauma and improvement of the outcome of these patients. Previous studies have examined the performance of Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) or Circulation, Respiration, Abdomen, Motor, and Speech (CRAMS) score based solely on mortality prediction or injury severity prediction. However, to the best of our knowledge, the performances of both scoring systems on in-hospital mortality and trauma severity prediction have not been compared previously. This retrospective study evaluated the value of MEWS and CRAMS score to predict in-hospital mortality and trauma severity in patients presenting to the ED with multiple traumatic injuries.MethodsAll study subjects were multiple trauma patients. Medical data of 1,127 patients were analyzed between January 2014 and April 2018. The MEWS and CRAMS score were calculated, and logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were conducted to investigate their performances regarding in-hospital mortality and trauma severity prediction.ResultsFor in-hospital mortality prediction, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) for MEWS and CRAMS score were 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, indicating that both of them were good in-hospital mortality predictors. Further, our study indicated that the CRAMS score performed better in trauma severity prediction, with an AUROC value of 0.84, which was higher than that of MEWS (AUROC = 0.77). For trauma severity prediction, the optimal cut-off value for MEWS was 2, while that of the CRAMS score was 8.ConclusionsWe found that both MEWS and CRAMS score can be used as predictors for trauma severity and in-hospital mortality for multiple trauma patients, but that CRAMS score was superior to MEWS for trauma severity prediction. CRAMS score should be prioritized in the prediction of trauma severity due to its excellence as a multiple trauma triage tool and potential contribution to rapid emergency rescue decisions.

Project description:BackgroundEarly 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFour 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.ConclusionPOSMI was validated to be an effective tool for predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis.

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.

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.