Clinician Prediction of Survival vs Calculated Prediction Scores in Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

IF 1.4 Q3 NURSING
Laura Ann Martin, Genesis R Bojorquez, Cassia Yi, Alex Ignatyev, Travis Pollema, Judy E Davidson, Mazen Odish
{"title":"Clinician Prediction of Survival vs Calculated Prediction Scores in Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.","authors":"Laura Ann Martin, Genesis R Bojorquez, Cassia Yi, Alex Ignatyev, Travis Pollema, Judy E Davidson, Mazen Odish","doi":"10.1097/DCC.0000000000000643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining appropriate extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidacy ensures appropriate utilization of this costly resource. The current ECMO survival prediction scores do not consider clinician assessment of patient viability. This study compared clinician prediction of survival to hospital discharge versus prediction scores.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare clinician prediction of patients' survival to hospital discharge versus prognostic prediction scores (Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction [RESP] or Survival After Veno-Arterial ECMO [SAVE] score) to actual survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an observational descriptive study from January 2020 to November 2021 conducted with interviews of nurses, perfusionists, and physicians who were involved during the initiation of ECMO within the first 24 hours of cannulation. Data were retrieved from the medical record to determine prediction scores and survival outcomes at hospital discharge. Accuracy of clinician prediction of survival was compared to the RESP or SAVE prediction scores and actual survival to hospital discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Accurate prediction of survival to hospital discharge for veno-venous ECMO by nurses was 47%, 64% by perfusionists, 45% by physicians, and 45% by the RESP score. Accurate predictions of patients on veno-arterial ECMO were correct in 54% of nurses, 77% of physicians, and 14% by the SAVE score. Physicians were more accurate than the SAVE score, P = .021, and perfusionists were significantly more accurate than the RESP score, P = .044. There was no relationship between ECMO specialists' years of experience and accuracy of predications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation clinicians may have better predictions of survival to hospital discharge than the prediction scores. Further research is needed to develop accurate prediction tools to help determine ECMO eligibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":46646,"journal":{"name":"Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Determining appropriate extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidacy ensures appropriate utilization of this costly resource. The current ECMO survival prediction scores do not consider clinician assessment of patient viability. This study compared clinician prediction of survival to hospital discharge versus prediction scores.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare clinician prediction of patients' survival to hospital discharge versus prognostic prediction scores (Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction [RESP] or Survival After Veno-Arterial ECMO [SAVE] score) to actual survival.

Methods: This was an observational descriptive study from January 2020 to November 2021 conducted with interviews of nurses, perfusionists, and physicians who were involved during the initiation of ECMO within the first 24 hours of cannulation. Data were retrieved from the medical record to determine prediction scores and survival outcomes at hospital discharge. Accuracy of clinician prediction of survival was compared to the RESP or SAVE prediction scores and actual survival to hospital discharge.

Results: Accurate prediction of survival to hospital discharge for veno-venous ECMO by nurses was 47%, 64% by perfusionists, 45% by physicians, and 45% by the RESP score. Accurate predictions of patients on veno-arterial ECMO were correct in 54% of nurses, 77% of physicians, and 14% by the SAVE score. Physicians were more accurate than the SAVE score, P = .021, and perfusionists were significantly more accurate than the RESP score, P = .044. There was no relationship between ECMO specialists' years of experience and accuracy of predications.

Conclusion: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation clinicians may have better predictions of survival to hospital discharge than the prediction scores. Further research is needed to develop accurate prediction tools to help determine ECMO eligibility.

临床医生对需要进行体外膜氧合的患者的存活率预测与计算得出的预测分数对比。
背景:确定合适的体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)候选者可确保这一昂贵资源的合理利用。目前的 ECMO 存活率预测评分并未考虑临床医生对患者存活率的评估。本研究将临床医生对患者出院后存活率的预测与预测分数进行了比较:本研究旨在比较临床医生对患者出院存活率的预测与预后预测评分(呼吸 ECMO 存活率预测 [RESP] 或静脉-动脉 ECMO 后存活率 [SAVE] 评分)与实际存活率:这是一项观察性描述研究,研究时间为 2020 年 1 月至 2021 年 11 月,对插管后 24 小时内启动 ECMO 期间参与的护士、灌注师和医生进行了访谈。从病历中检索数据,以确定预测分数和出院时的存活结果。将临床医生预测存活率的准确性与 RESP 或 SAVE 预测评分和实际出院存活率进行比较:结果:护士对静脉-静脉 ECMO 患者出院存活率的准确预测率为 47%,灌注师为 64%,医生为 45%,RESP 评分为 45%。护士对静脉-动脉 ECMO 患者的准确预测正确率为 54%,医生为 77%,SAVE 评分为 14%。医生比 SAVE 评分更准确,P = .021;灌注师比 RESP 评分更准确,P = .044。ECMO 专家的经验年限与预测准确性之间没有关系:结论:体外膜肺氧合临床医生对患者出院后存活率的预测可能优于预测评分。需要进一步研究开发准确的预测工具,以帮助确定 ECMO 的资格。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: The primary purpose of Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing™ is to provide nurses with accurate, current, and relevant information and services to excel in critical care practice.
×
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