Internal evaluation of risk stratification tool using serial procalcitonin and clinical risk factors in pediatric febrile neutropenia: The non-interventional, single institution experience prior to clinical implementation.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
C N Nessle, T Braun, S W Choi, R Mody
{"title":"Internal evaluation of risk stratification tool using serial procalcitonin and clinical risk factors in pediatric febrile neutropenia: The non-interventional, single institution experience prior to clinical implementation.","authors":"C N Nessle,&nbsp;T Braun,&nbsp;S W Choi,&nbsp;R Mody","doi":"10.1080/08880018.2022.2079785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risk stratification of pediatric febrile neutropenia (FN) is an established concept, yet clinical risk tools misclassify nearly 5% of clinical standard-risk episodes with severe outcomes. The internal evaluation of a clinical risk tool before implementation has not been well-described. In this noninterventional cohort study, we evaluated a study decision rules (SDR) tool; a clinical risk tool with serial procalcitonin. The study standard-risk (SSR) group met clinical standard-risk criteria with two serial procalcitonin <0.4 ng/mL. The study high-risk (SHR) group met clinical high-risk criteria or clinical standard-risk with a procalcitonin ≥0.4 ng/mL. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared the groups and outcomes. Clinical criteria alone identified 39.1% (238/608) standard-risk episodes; 5.9% (14/238) had severe events. Prospectively using the SDR, the SHR group encompassed 76.6% (92/120) of episodes; severe events occurred in 20% (3/15) of standard-risk episodes included due to elevated procalcitonin ≥0.4 ng/mL. The SHR group had more blood stream infections [21.7% (20/92) vs. 0% (0/28); <i>P</i> = 0.007] and intensive care admissions [13% (12/92) vs. 3.6% (1/28); <i>P</i> = 0.158]. In conclusion, the SDR with serial procalcitonin aided in identifying severe events in clinical standard-risk episodes, but analysis was limited. Institutions may consider similar internal evaluation methodology before FN episode risk stratification.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9840714/pdf/nihms-1838145.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08880018.2022.2079785","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Risk stratification of pediatric febrile neutropenia (FN) is an established concept, yet clinical risk tools misclassify nearly 5% of clinical standard-risk episodes with severe outcomes. The internal evaluation of a clinical risk tool before implementation has not been well-described. In this noninterventional cohort study, we evaluated a study decision rules (SDR) tool; a clinical risk tool with serial procalcitonin. The study standard-risk (SSR) group met clinical standard-risk criteria with two serial procalcitonin <0.4 ng/mL. The study high-risk (SHR) group met clinical high-risk criteria or clinical standard-risk with a procalcitonin ≥0.4 ng/mL. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared the groups and outcomes. Clinical criteria alone identified 39.1% (238/608) standard-risk episodes; 5.9% (14/238) had severe events. Prospectively using the SDR, the SHR group encompassed 76.6% (92/120) of episodes; severe events occurred in 20% (3/15) of standard-risk episodes included due to elevated procalcitonin ≥0.4 ng/mL. The SHR group had more blood stream infections [21.7% (20/92) vs. 0% (0/28); P = 0.007] and intensive care admissions [13% (12/92) vs. 3.6% (1/28); P = 0.158]. In conclusion, the SDR with serial procalcitonin aided in identifying severe events in clinical standard-risk episodes, but analysis was limited. Institutions may consider similar internal evaluation methodology before FN episode risk stratification.

使用系列降钙素原和临床危险因素对儿童发热性中性粒细胞减少症进行风险分层工具的内部评估:临床实施前的非介入性、单一机构经验。
儿童发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的风险分层是一个既定的概念,但临床风险工具错误分类了近5%的具有严重后果的临床标准风险事件。临床风险工具实施前的内部评估尚未得到很好的描述。在这项非干预性队列研究中,我们评估了一种研究决策规则(SDR)工具;连续降钙素原的临床风险工具。研究标准风险(SSR)组符合临床标准风险标准,两个系列降钙素原P = 0.007]和重症监护入院率[13%(12/92)比3.6% (1/28);p = 0.158]。总之,连续降钙素原的SDR有助于识别临床标准风险发作中的严重事件,但分析有限。在FN事件风险分层之前,机构可能会考虑类似的内部评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信