Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) in intensive care: Development and validation of a prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The prediction of in-hospital mortality for ICU patients with COVID-19 is fundamental to treatment and resource allocation. The main purpose was to develop an easily implemented score for such prediction.Methods
This was an observational, multicenter, development, and validation study on a national critical care dataset of COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature review was performed to determine variables possibly important for COVID-19 mortality prediction. Using a logistic multivariable model with a LASSO penalty, we developed the Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) score and compared its performance against published scores.Results
Our development (validation) cohort consisted of 1480 (937) adult patients from 14 (11) Dutch ICUs admitted between March 2020 and April 2021. Median age was 65 (65) years, 31% (26%) died in hospital, 74% (72%) were males, average length of ICU stay was 7.83 (10.25) days and average length of hospital stay was 15.90 (19.92) days. Age, platelets, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, pH, blood urea nitrogen, temperature, PaCO2, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score measured within +/-24 h of ICU admission were used to develop the score. The AUROC of RECOILS score was 0.75 (CI 0.71-0.78) which was higher than that of any previously reported predictive scores (0.68 [CI 0.64-0.71], 0.61 [CI 0.58-0.66], 0.67 [CI 0.63-0.70], 0.70 [CI 0.67-0.74] for ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, SOFA, SAPS-III, and age, respectively).Conclusions
Using a large dataset from multiple Dutch ICUs, we developed a predictive score for mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU, which outperformed other predictive scores reported so far.
SUBMITTER: Plecko D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8652966 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo explain and demonstrate a new approach for rapidly developing a decision-support tool for prioritizing patients with coronovirus 2019 disease for admission to ICUs.DesignAn expert group used multi-criteria decision analysis methods to specify criteria and weights, representing their relative importance, for prioritizing patients with coronovirus 2019 disease with respect to likely clinical benefit. Specialized multi-criteria decision analysis software, implementing the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" method to determine the weights, was used. Social equity considerations for prioritizing patients were also identified as important.SettingThe prioritization tool was developed in New Zealand.SubjectsAn expert group comprising specialists from intensive care medicine and nursing, Māori (New Zealand's indigenous population) health, infectious diseases, and neonatology was formed. The group's work was supported by health economists and decision analysts and overseen by an ethicist and a senior representative from the New Zealand Ministry of Health.InterventionsMulti-criteria decision analysis to create a prioritization tool.Measurements and main resultsThe prioritization tool comprised eight criteria with respect to likely clinical benefit. In decreasing order of importance (weights in parentheses): Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (15.7%), preexisting cardiovascular conditions (15.7%), functional capacity (15.7%), age (12.4%), preexisting respiratory conditions (11.1%), immunocompromised (11.1%), body mass index (9.2%), and other relevant medical conditions (9.2%). Two social equity considerations were also included in the overarching decision framework to be used alongside the clinical criteria: prioritizing Māori and Pacific people (and, potentially, other at-risk groups), and healthcare and other frontline workers.ConclusionsThe criteria and weights in the prioritization tool can be easily revised as new evidence emerges. The approach for developing the tool could be used in other countries whose ICUs are at risk of being overwhelmed by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to rapidly develop their own prioritization tools. In the event that future crises threaten to overload ICUs, other prioritization tools could also be rapidly developed.
| S-EPMC7994037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Majority burn mortality prognostic scores were developed and validated in western populations. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and identify possible risk factors which may be used to predict burns mortality in a local Malaysian burns intensive care unit. The secondary objective was to validate the five well known burn prognostic scores (Baux score, Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) score, Ryan score, Belgium Outcome Burn Injury (BOBI) score and revised Baux score) to predict burn mortality prediction. METHODS:Patients that were treated at the Hospital Sultan Ismail's Burns Intensive Care (BICU) unit for acute burn injuries between 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017 were included. Risk factors to predict in-patient burn mortality were gender, age, mechanism of injury, total body surface area burn (TBSA), inhalational injury, mechanical ventilation, presence of tracheotomy, time from of burn injury to BICU admission and initial centre of first emergency treatment was administered. These variables were analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis for the outcomes of death. All patients were scored retrospectively using the five-burn mortality prognostic scores. Predictive ability for burn mortality was analysed using the area under receiver operating curve (AUROC). RESULTS:A total of 525 patients (372 males and 153 females) with mean age of 34.5?±?14.6?years were included. There were 463 survivors and 62 deaths (11.8% mortality rate). The outcome of the primary objective showed that amongst the burn mortality risk factors that remained after multivariate analysis were older age (p?=?0.004), wider TBSA burn (p?<?0.001) and presence of mechanical ventilation (p?<?0.001). Outcome of secondary objective showed good AUROC value for the prediction of burn death for all five burn prediction scores (Baux score; AUROC:0.9, ABSI score; AUROC:0.92, Ryan score; AUROC:0.87, BOBI score; AUROC:0.91 and revised Baux score; AUROC:0.94). The revised Baux score had the best AUROC value of 0.94 to predict burns mortality. CONCLUSION:Current study evaluated and identified older age, total body surface area burns, and mechanical ventilation as significant predictors of burn mortality. In addition, the revised Baux score was the most accurate burn mortality risk score to predict mortality in a Malaysian burn's population.
| S-EPMC6839226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers use a life expectancy of at least 5 to 10 years in shared clinical decision-making with older adults about cancer screening, major surgeries, and disease prevention interventions. At present, few prognostic indexes predict long-term mortality beyond 10 years or are suited for use in primary care settings.ObjectiveWe developed and validated an 8-item multidimensional index predicting 11-year mortality for use in primary care.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Studies (SLAS), we developed a Primary Care Prognostic (PCP) Index for predicting 11-year mortality risk in a development cohort (n = 1550) and validated it in a geographically different cohort (n = 928).Main measuresThe PCP Index was derived from eight indicators (body mass loss, weakness, slow gait, comorbidity, polypharmacy, IADL/BADL dependency, low albumin, low total cholesterol, out of 25 candidate indicators) using stepwise Cox proportional hazard models.Key resultsIn the developmental cohort, the mortality hazard ratio increased by 53% per PCP point score increase, independent of age and sex. Across risk categories, absolute risks of mortality increased from 5% (score 0) to 67.9% (scores 7-9), with area under curve (AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.73-0.80)). The PCP Index also predicted mortality in the validation cohort, with AUC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75).ConclusionsThe PCP Index using simple clinical assessments and point scoring is a potentially useful prognostic tool for predicting long-term mortality and is well suited for risk stratification and shared clinical decision-making with older adults in primary care.
| S-EPMC7858716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA scoring system based on physiological conditions was developed in 1984 to assess the severity of illness. This version, and subsequent versions, were labelled Simplified Acute Physiology Scores (SAPS). Each extension addressed limitations in the earlier version, with the SAPS III model using a data-driven approach. However, the SAPS III model did not include data collected from the African continent, thereby limiting the generalisation of the results.ObjectivesTo propose a scoring system for assessing severity of illness at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a model for prediction of in-hospital mortality, based on the severity of illness score.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study which included patients who were admitted to an ICU in a South African tertiary hospital in 2017. Logistic regression modelling was used to develop the proposed scoring system, and the proposed mortality prediction model.ResultsThe study included 829 patients. Less than a quarter of patients (21.35%; n=177) died during the study period. The proposed model exhibited good calibration and excellent discrimination.ConclusionThe proposed scoring system is able to assess severity of illness at ICU admission, while the proposed statistical model may be used in the prediction of in-hospital mortality.Contributions of the studyThis study is the first to develop a model similar to the SAPS III model, based on data collected in South Africa. In addition, this study provides a potential starting point for the development of a model that can be used nationally.
| S-EPMC9295203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study is to create a predictive, interpretable model of early hospital respiratory failure among emergency department (ED) patients admitted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:This was an observational, retrospective, cohort study from a 9-ED health system of admitted adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and an oxygen requirement less than or equal to 6 L/min. We sought to predict respiratory failure within 24 hours of admission as defined by oxygen requirement of greater than 10 L/min by low-flow device, high-flow device, noninvasive or invasive ventilation, or death. Predictive models were compared with the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, and the CURB-65 pneumonia severity score. RESULTS:During the study period, from March 1 to April 27, 2020, 1,792 patients were admitted with COVID-19, 620 (35%) of whom had respiratory failure in the ED. Of the remaining 1,172 admitted patients, 144 (12.3%) met the composite endpoint within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. On the independent test cohort, both a novel bedside scoring system, the quick COVID-19 Severity Index (area under receiver operating characteristic curve mean 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.73 to 0.89]), and a machine-learning model, the COVID-19 Severity Index (mean 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.86]), outperformed the Elixhauser mortality index (mean 0.61 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.70]), CURB-65 (0.50 [95% CI 0.40 to 0.60]), and quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (0.59 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.68]). A low quick COVID-19 Severity Index score was associated with a less than 5% risk of respiratory decompensation in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION:A significant proportion of admitted COVID-19 patients progress to respiratory failure within 24 hours of admission. These events are accurately predicted with bedside respiratory examination findings within a simple scoring system.
| S-EPMC7373004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to validate the ability of an early post-cardiac arrest illness severity classification to predict patient outcomes.The Pittsburgh Cardiac Arrest Category (PCAC) is a 4-level illness severity score that was found to be strongly predictive of outcomes in the initial derivation study. We assigned PCAC scores to consecutive in and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subjects treated at two tertiary care centers between January 2011 and September 2013. We made assignments prospectively at Site 1 and retrospectively at Site 2. Our primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Inter-rater reliability of retrospective PCAC assessments was assessed. Secondary outcomes were favorable discharge disposition (home or acute rehabilitation), Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at hospital discharge. We tested the association of PCAC with each outcome using unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression.We included 607 cardiac arrest patients during the study (393 at Site 1 and 214 at Site 2). Site populations differed in age, arrest location, rhythm, use of hypothermia and distribution of PCAC. Inter-rater reliability of retrospective PCAC assignments was excellent (?=0.81). PCAC was associated with survival (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for Site 1: 0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.41)) Site 2: 0.32 (95% CI 0.24-0.43) even after adjustment for other clinical variables (adjusted OR Site 1: 0.32 (95% CI 0.25-0.41) Site 2: 0.31 (95% CI 0.22-0.44)). PCAC was predictive of secondary outcomes.Our results confirm that PCAC is strongly predictive of survival and good functional outcome after cardiac arrest.
| S-EPMC4580975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsLiver chemistry abnormalities (LCA) are common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their causes and clinical impact have not been adequately studied. We assessed the associations between LCA and clinical characteristics, inflammatory serum markers, in-hospital mortality.MethodsTen thousand eight hundred fifty-six adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in 13 hospitals in New York (1 March to 27 April 2020) were analyzed retrospectively. Abnormalities of liver chemistries [aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, or total bilirubin] were defined as absent, mild-moderate (at least one value up to four times elevated), or severe.ResultsLCA were mild-moderate in 63.9% and severe in 7.6% at admission. Risk factors for severe LCA were male sex and chronic liver disease. Conversely, hypertension and diabetes mellitus were less likely associated with severe LCA. AST elevation correlated weakly to modestly with inflammatory markers. On adjusted analysis, in-hospital mortality was 1.56 times and 1.87 times increased in patients with mild-to-moderate and severe LCA, respectively. Diabetes, hypertension, male sex, and age greater than 60 years was associated with incremental risk of mortality with increase severity of LCA, especially in the first week of hospitalization. HTN was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality unless LCA was present.ConclusionIncreasing severity of LCA on hospital admission predicts early in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Mortality associated with the known risk factors, hypertension, diabetes, male sex, and old age was accentuated in the presence of LCA. AST correlated modestly with inflammatory markers.
| S-EPMC8734572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPredicting hospital mortality risk is essential for the care of heart failure patients, especially for those in intensive care units.MethodsUsing a novel machine learning algorithm, we constructed a risk stratification tool that correlated patients' clinical features and in-hospital mortality. We used the extreme gradient boosting algorithm to generate a model predicting the mortality risk of heart failure patients in the intensive care unit in the derivation dataset of 5676 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. The logistic regression model and a common risk score for mortality were used for comparison. The eICU Collaborative Research Database dataset was used for external validation.ResultsThe performance of the machine learning model was superior to that of conventional risk predictive methods, with the area under curve 0.831 (95% CI 0.820-0.843) and acceptable calibration. In external validation, the model had an area under the curve of 0.809 (95% CI 0.805-0.814). Risk stratification through the model was specific when the hospital mortality was very low, low, moderate, high, and very high (2.0%, 10.2%, 11.5%, 21.2% and 56.2%, respectively). The decision curve analysis verified that the machine learning model is the best clinically valuable in predicting mortality risk.ConclusionUsing readily available clinical data in the intensive care unit, we built a machine learning-based mortality risk tool with prediction accuracy superior to that of linear regression model and common risk scores. The risk tool may support clinicians in assessing individual patients and making individualized treatment.
| S-EPMC8932070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/hypothesisHospital admissions for hypoglycaemia represent a significant burden on individuals with diabetes and have a substantial economic impact on healthcare systems. To date, no prognostic models have been developed to predict outcomes following admission for hypoglycaemia. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models to estimate risk of inpatient death, 24 h discharge and one month readmission in people admitted to hospital for hypoglycaemia.MethodsWe used the Hospital Episode Statistics database, which includes data on all hospital admission to National Health Service hospital trusts in England, to extract admissions for hypoglycaemia between 2010 and 2014. We developed, internally and temporally validated, and compared two prognostic risk models for each outcome. The first model included age, sex, ethnicity, region, social deprivation and Charlson score ('base' model). In the second model, we added to the 'base' model the 20 most common medical conditions and applied a stepwise backward selection of variables ('disease' model). We used C-index and calibration plots to assess model performance and developed a calculator to estimate probabilities of outcomes according to individual characteristics.ResultsIn derivation samples, 296 out of 11,136 admissions resulted in inpatient death, 1789/33,825 in one month readmission and 8396/33,803 in 24 h discharge. Corresponding values for validation samples were: 296/10,976, 1207/22,112 and 5363/22,107. The two models had similar discrimination. In derivation samples, C-indices for the base and disease models, respectively, were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.75, 0.80) and 0.78 (0.75, 0.80) for death, 0.57 (0.56, 0.59) and 0.57 (0.56, 0.58) for one month readmission, and 0.68 (0.67, 0.69) and 0.69 (0.68, 0.69) for 24 h discharge. Corresponding values in validation samples were: 0.74 (0.71, 0.76) and 0.74 (0.72, 0.77), 0.55 (0.54, 0.57) and 0.55 (0.53, 0.56), and 0.66 (0.65, 0.67) and 0.67 (0.66, 0.68). In both derivation and validation samples, calibration plots showed good agreement for the three outcomes. We developed a calculator of probabilities for inpatient death and 24 h discharge given the low performance of one month readmission models.Conclusions/interpretationThis simple and pragmatic tool to predict in-hospital death and 24 h discharge has the potential to reduce mortality and improve discharge in people admitted for hypoglycaemia.
| S-EPMC5423930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether ICU readmission is associated with higher severity of illness scores in adult patients.BackgroundReadmissions to the intensive care unit (ICU) are associated with increased costs, morbidity, and mortality.MethodsWe performed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and grey literature databases. We selected studies reporting data from adults who were hospitalized in an ICU, received severity of illness scores, and were discharged from the ICU. Characteristics of readmitted and non-readmitted patients were examined.ResultsWe screened 4766 publications and included 31 studies in our analysis. In most studies, severity of illness scores were higher in patients readmitted to the ICU. Readmission was also associated with higher mortality and longer ICU and hospital stays. Excessive heterogeneity precluded the reporting of results in the form of a meta-analysis.ConclusionsICU readmission is associated with higher severity of illness scores during the same hospitalization in adult patients.
| S-EPMC4692266 | biostudies-literature