Added value of inflammatory markers to vital signs for predicting mortality in patients with suspected infection: external validation and model development.
Toshihiko Takada, Jeroen Hoogland, Kotaro Fujii, Masataka Kudo, Sho Sasaki, Tetsuhiro Yano, Yu Yagi, Ryuto Fujiishi, Karel G M Moons, Shunichi Fukuhara
{"title":"Added value of inflammatory markers to vital signs for predicting mortality in patients with suspected infection: external validation and model development.","authors":"Toshihiko Takada, Jeroen Hoogland, Kotaro Fujii, Masataka Kudo, Sho Sasaki, Tetsuhiro Yano, Yu Yagi, Ryuto Fujiishi, Karel G M Moons, Shunichi Fukuhara","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03815-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is crucial to identify high-risk patients with infectious conditions for appropriate management. We previously found that inflammatory markers added value to vital signs for predicting mortality in patients with suspected infection. In this study, the aim was to externally validate the added value of the inflammatory markers and to develop a new prediction model. For the external validation, consecutive adult patients with suspected infection admitted to the department of general medicine at two acute care hospitals were evaluated. A prognostic model for 30-day in-hospital mortality based on vital signs (systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and mental status) was compared with an extended model that also included four inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, mean platelet volume, and red cell distribution width). Similar to the previous finding, all inflammatory markers except C-reactive protein showed significant contributions. Subsequently, a prediction model was developed using vital signs and markers with significant added value using a dataset that combined the external validation data with the data of the previous study. The new model was compared with a model based on the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. The newly developed model showed a higher c-index than the qSOFA model [0.756 (95% CI 0.726-0.786) vs. 0.663 (0.630-0.696), p < 0.001]. Using the new model, 9.0% of patients who died were correctly reclassified compared with the qSOFA model at the threshold of 10% mortality risk. The new model including these markers showed potential to outperform the qSOFA model.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1923-1931"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03815-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
It is crucial to identify high-risk patients with infectious conditions for appropriate management. We previously found that inflammatory markers added value to vital signs for predicting mortality in patients with suspected infection. In this study, the aim was to externally validate the added value of the inflammatory markers and to develop a new prediction model. For the external validation, consecutive adult patients with suspected infection admitted to the department of general medicine at two acute care hospitals were evaluated. A prognostic model for 30-day in-hospital mortality based on vital signs (systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and mental status) was compared with an extended model that also included four inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, mean platelet volume, and red cell distribution width). Similar to the previous finding, all inflammatory markers except C-reactive protein showed significant contributions. Subsequently, a prediction model was developed using vital signs and markers with significant added value using a dataset that combined the external validation data with the data of the previous study. The new model was compared with a model based on the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. The newly developed model showed a higher c-index than the qSOFA model [0.756 (95% CI 0.726-0.786) vs. 0.663 (0.630-0.696), p < 0.001]. Using the new model, 9.0% of patients who died were correctly reclassified compared with the qSOFA model at the threshold of 10% mortality risk. The new model including these markers showed potential to outperform the qSOFA model.
识别感染性疾病的高危患者以进行适当治疗至关重要。我们曾发现,在预测疑似感染患者的死亡率时,炎症标志物比生命体征更有价值。本研究旨在从外部验证炎症标志物的附加值,并开发一个新的预测模型。为了进行外部验证,我们对两家急诊医院普通内科连续收治的疑似感染成人患者进行了评估。一个基于生命体征(收缩压、呼吸频率和精神状态)的 30 天院内死亡率预后模型与一个包含四种炎症指标(C 反应蛋白、中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比值、平均血小板体积和红细胞分布宽度)的扩展模型进行了比较。与之前的研究结果类似,除 C 反应蛋白外,所有炎症指标都有显著贡献。随后,利用外部验证数据与先前研究数据相结合的数据集,利用具有显著附加值的生命体征和标志物建立了一个预测模型。新模型与基于快速序列(败血症相关)器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分的模型进行了比较。新开发的模型比 qSOFA 模型显示出更高的 c 指数[0.756 (95% CI 0.726-0.786) vs. 0.663 (0.630-0.696), p
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.