Dataset Information

Prospective international validation of the predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) clinical staging system among intensive care and general ward patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stratifying patients with sepsis was the basis of the predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) concept, an attempt to resolve the heterogeneity in treatment response. The purpose of this study is to perform an independent validation of the PIRO staging system in an international cohort and explore its utility in the identification of patients in whom time to antibiotic treatment is particularly important.

Methods

Prospective international cohort study, conducted over a 6-month period in five Portuguese hospitals and one Australian institution. All consecutive adult patients admitted to selected wards or the intensive care, with infections that met the CDC criteria for lower respiratory tract, urinary, intra-abdominal and bloodstream infections were included.

Results

There were 1638 patients included in the study. Patients who died in hospital presented with a higher PIRO score (10 ± 3 vs 8 ± 4, p < 0.001). The observed mortality was 3%, 15%, 24% and 34% in stage I, II, III and IV, respectively, which was within the predicted intervals of the original model, except for stage IV patients that presented a lower mortality. The hospital survival rate was 84%. The application of the PIRO staging system to the validation cohort resulted in a positive predictive value of 97% for stage I, 91% for stage II, 85% for stage III and 66% for stage IV. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was 0.75 for the all cohort and 0.70 if only patients with bacteremia were considered. Patients in stage III and IV who did not have antibiotic therapy administered within the desired time frame had higher mortality rate than those who have timely administration of antibiotic.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first external validation of this PIRO staging system and it performed well on different patient wards within the hospital and in different types of hospitals. Future studies could apply the PIRO system to decision-making about specific therapeutic interventions and enrollment in clinical trials based on disease stage.

SUBMITTER: Cardoso T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8702585 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo develop a clinical staging system based on the PIRO concept (Predisposition, Infection, RESPONSE and Organ dysfunction) for hospitalized patients with infection.MethodsOne year prospective cohort study of all hospitalized patients with infection (n = 1035), admitted into a large tertiary care, university hospital. Variables associated with hospital mortality were selected using logistic regressions. Based on the regression coefficients, a score for each PIRO component was developed and a classification tree was used to stratify patients into four stages of increased risk of hospital mortality. The final clinical staging system was then validated using an independent cohort (n = 186).ResultsFactors significantly associated with hospital mortality were • for Predisposition: age, sex, previous antibiotic therapy, chronic hepatic disease, chronic hematologic disease, cancer, atherosclerosis and a Karnofsky index<70; • for Insult/Infection: type of infection • forResponseabnormal temperature, tachypnea, hyperglycemia and severity of infection and • for Organ dysfunction: hypotension and SOFA score≥1. The area under the ROC curve (CI95%) for the combined PIRO model as a predictor for mortality was 0.85 (0.82-0.88). Based on the scores for each of the PIRO components and on the cut-offs estimated from the classification tree, patients were stratified into four stages of increased mortality rates: stage I: ≤5%, stage II: 6-20%, stage III: 21-50% and stage IV: >50%. Finally, this new clinical staging system was studied in a validation cohort, which provided similar results (0%, 9%, 31% and 67%, in each stage, respectively).ConclusionsBased on the PIRO concept, a new clinical staging system was developed for hospitalized patients with infection, allowing stratification into four stages of increased mortality, using the different scores obtained in Predisposition, RESPONSE, Infection and Organ dysfunction. The proposed system will likely help to define inclusion criteria in clinical trials as well as tailoring individual management plans for patients with infection.

Project description:PurposeTo systematically review and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in order to improve the safety and efficiency of patient handover between intensive care unit (ICU) and general ward healthcare professionals at ICU discharge.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for intervention studies with the aim to improve clinical handover between ICU and general ward healthcare professionals that had been published up to and including June 2013. The methods for article inclusion and data analysis were pre-specified and aligned with recommendations outlined in the PRISMA guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted data (study purpose, setting, population, method of sampling, sample size, intervention characteristics, outcome, and implementation activities) and assessed the quality of the included studies.ResultsFrom the 6,591 citations initially extracted from the six databases, we included 11 studies in this review. Of these, six (55 %) reported statistically significant effects. Effective interventions included liaison nurses to improve communication and coordination of care and forms to facilitate timely, complete and accurate handover information. Effective interventions resulted in improved continuity of care (e.g., reduced discharge delay) and in reduced adverse events. Inconsistent effects were observed for use of care, namely, reduction of length of stay versus increase of readmissions to higher care. No statistically significant effects were found in the reduction of mortality. The overall methodological quality of the 11 studies reviewed was relatively low, with an average score of 4.5 out of 11 points.ConclusionsThis review shows that liaison nurses and handover forms are promising interventions to improve the quality of patient handover between the ICU and general ward. More robust evidence is needed on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve ICU handover and supportive implementation strategies.

Project description:Background: In-hospital transfers such as from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the general internal medicine (GIM) ward place patients at risk of adverse events. A structured handover tool may improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Objective: To develop, implement, and evaluate a customized user-designed transfer tool to improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Methods: This was a pre-post intervention study at a tertiary academic hospital. We developed and implemented a user-designed, structured, handwritten ICU-to-GIM transfer tool. The tool included active medical issues, functional status, medications and medication changes, consulting services, code status, and emergency contact information. Transfer tool users included GIM physicians, ICU physicians, and critical care rapid response team nurses. An implementation audit and mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis of pre-post survey responses was used to evaluate clinician satisfaction and the perceived quality of patient transfers. Results: The pre-post survey response rate was 51.8% (99/191). Respondents included GIM residents (58.5%), ICU rapid response team physicians and nurses (24.2%), and GIM attending physicians (17.2%). Less than half of clinicians (48.8%) reported that the preintervention transfer process was adequate. Clinicians who used the transfer tool reported that the transfer process was improved (93.3% vs. 48.8%, P = 0.03). Clinician-reported understanding of medication changes in the ICU increased (69.2% vs. 29.1%, P = 0.004), as did their ability to plan for a safe hospital discharge (69.2% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.01). However, only 64.2% of audited transfers used the tool. Frequently omitted sections included home medications (missing in 83.4% of audits), new medications (33.3%), and secondary diagnosis (33.3%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses identified areas for improvement including clarifying the course of ICU events and enhancing tool usability. Conclusion: A user-designed, structured, handwritten transfer tool may improve the perceived quality of patient transfers from the ICU to the GIM wards.

Project description:Background and objectivesAKI is frequent and is associated with poor outcomes. There is limited information on the epidemiology of AKI worldwide. This study compared patients with AKI in emerging and developed countries to determine the association of clinical factors and processes of care with outcomes.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis prospective observational study was conducted among intensive care unit patients from nine centers in developed countries and five centers in emerging countries. AKI was defined as an increase in creatinine of ≥0.3 mg/dl within 48 hours.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2012, 6647 patients were screened, of whom 1275 (19.2%) developed AKI. A total of 745 (58% of those with AKI) agreed to participate and had complete data. Patients in developed countries had more sepsis (52.1% versus 38.0%) and higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scores (mean±SD, 61.1±27.5 versus 51.1±25.2); those from emerging countries had more CKD (54.3% versus 38.3%), GN (6.3% versus 0.9%), and interstitial nephritis (7.0% versus 0.6%) (all P<0.05). Patients from developed countries were less often treated with dialysis (15.5% versus 30.2%; P<0.001) and started dialysis later after AKI diagnosis (2.0 [interquartile range, 0.75-5.0] days versus 0 [interquartile range, 0-5.0] days; P=0.02). Hospital mortality was 22.0%, and 13.3% of survivors were dialysis dependent at discharge. Independent risk factors associated with hospital mortality included older age, residence in an emerging country, use of vasopressors (emerging countries only), dialysis and mechanical ventilation, and higher APACHE score and cumulative fluid balance (developed countries only). A lower probability of renal recovery was associated with residence in an emerging country, higher APACHE score (emerging countries only) and dialysis, while mechanical ventilation was associated with renal recovery (developed countries only).ConclusionsThis study contrasts the clinical features and management of AKI and demonstrates worse outcomes in emerging than in developed countries. Differences in variations in care may explain these findings and should be considered in future trials.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple organ dysfunction is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units (ICUs). Original development of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was not to predict outcome, but to describe temporal changes in organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. Organ dysfunction scoring may be a reasonable surrogate outcome in clinical trials but further exploration of the impact of case mix on the temporal sequence of organ dysfunction is required. Our aim was to compare temporal changes in SOFA scores between hospital survivors and non-survivors.MethodsWe performed a population-based observational retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013, to 4 multisystem adult intensive care units (ICUs) in Calgary, Canada. The primary outcome was temporal changes in daily SOFA scores during the first 14 days of ICU admission. SOFA scores were modeled between hospital survivors and non-survivors using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and were also stratified by admission SOFA (≤ 11 versus > 11).ResultsThe cohort consisted of 20,007 patients with at least one SOFA score and was mostly male (58.2%) with a median age of 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 44-72). Median ICU length of stay was 3.5 (IQR 1.7-7.5) days. ICU and hospital mortality were 18.5% and 25.5%, respectively. Temporal change in SOFA scores varied by survival and admission SOFA score in a complicated relationship. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using admission SOFA as a predictor of hospital mortality was 0.77. The hospital mortality rate was 5.6% for patients with an admission SOFA of 0-2 and 94.4% with an admission SOFA of 20-24. There was an approximately linear increase in hospital mortality for SOFA scores of 3-19 (range 8.7-84.7%).ConclusionsExamining the clinical course of organ dysfunction in a large non-selective cohort of patients provides insight into the utility of SOFA. We have demonstrated that hospital outcome is associated with both admission SOFA and the temporal rate of change in SOFA after admission. It is necessary to further explore the impact of additional clinical factors on the clinical course of SOFA with large datasets.