Optimal Vasopressin Initiation in Septic Shock: The OVISS Reinforcement Learning Study.

IF 55 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Alexandre Kalimouttou, Jason N Kennedy, Jean Feng, Harvineet Singh, Suchi Saria, Derek C Angus, Christopher W Seymour, Romain Pirracchio
{"title":"Optimal Vasopressin Initiation in Septic Shock: The OVISS Reinforcement Learning Study.","authors":"Alexandre Kalimouttou, Jason N Kennedy, Jean Feng, Harvineet Singh, Suchi Saria, Derek C Angus, Christopher W Seymour, Romain Pirracchio","doi":"10.1001/jama.2025.3046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor for patients with septic shock. When and whether a second agent, such as vasopressin, should be added is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To derive and validate a reinforcement learning model to determine the optimal initiation rule for vasopressin in adult, critically ill patients receiving norepinephrine for septic shock.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Reinforcement learning was used to generate the optimal rule for vasopressin initiation to improve short-term and hospital outcomes, using electronic health record data from 3608 patients who met the Sepsis-3 shock criteria at 5 California hospitals from 2012 to 2023. The rule was evaluated in 628 patients from the California dataset and 3 external datasets comprising 10 217 patients from 227 US hospitals, using weighted importance sampling and pooled logistic regression with inverse probability weighting.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Clinical, laboratory, and treatment variables grouped hourly for 120 hours in the electronic health record.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measure: </strong>The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The derivation cohort (n = 3608) included 2075 men (57%) and had a median (IQR) age of 63 (56-70) years and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at shock onset of 5 (3-7 [range, 0-24, with higher scores associated with greater mortality]). The validation cohorts (n = 10 217) were 56% male (n = 5743) with a median (IQR) age of 67 (57-75) years and a SOFA score of 6 (4-9). In validation data, the model suggested vasopressin initiation in more patients (87% vs 31%), earlier relative to shock onset (median [IQR], 4 [1-8] vs 5 [1-14] hours), and at lower norepinephrine doses (median [IQR], 0.20 [0.08-0.45] vs 0.37 [0.17-0.69] µg/kg/min) compared with clinicians' actions. The rule was associated with a larger expected reward in validation data compared with clinician actions (weighted importance sampling difference, 31 [95% CI, 15-52]). The adjusted odds of hospital mortality were lower if vasopressin initiation was similar to the rule compared with different (odds ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.91]), a finding consistent across external validation sets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In adult patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, the use of vasopressin was variable. A reinforcement learning model developed and validated in several observational datasets recommended more frequent and earlier use of vasopressin than average care patterns and was associated with reduced mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":54909,"journal":{"name":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"1688-1698"},"PeriodicalIF":55.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920879/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.3046","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor for patients with septic shock. When and whether a second agent, such as vasopressin, should be added is unknown.

Objective: To derive and validate a reinforcement learning model to determine the optimal initiation rule for vasopressin in adult, critically ill patients receiving norepinephrine for septic shock.

Design, setting, and participants: Reinforcement learning was used to generate the optimal rule for vasopressin initiation to improve short-term and hospital outcomes, using electronic health record data from 3608 patients who met the Sepsis-3 shock criteria at 5 California hospitals from 2012 to 2023. The rule was evaluated in 628 patients from the California dataset and 3 external datasets comprising 10 217 patients from 227 US hospitals, using weighted importance sampling and pooled logistic regression with inverse probability weighting.

Exposures: Clinical, laboratory, and treatment variables grouped hourly for 120 hours in the electronic health record.

Main outcome and measure: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

Results: The derivation cohort (n = 3608) included 2075 men (57%) and had a median (IQR) age of 63 (56-70) years and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at shock onset of 5 (3-7 [range, 0-24, with higher scores associated with greater mortality]). The validation cohorts (n = 10 217) were 56% male (n = 5743) with a median (IQR) age of 67 (57-75) years and a SOFA score of 6 (4-9). In validation data, the model suggested vasopressin initiation in more patients (87% vs 31%), earlier relative to shock onset (median [IQR], 4 [1-8] vs 5 [1-14] hours), and at lower norepinephrine doses (median [IQR], 0.20 [0.08-0.45] vs 0.37 [0.17-0.69] µg/kg/min) compared with clinicians' actions. The rule was associated with a larger expected reward in validation data compared with clinician actions (weighted importance sampling difference, 31 [95% CI, 15-52]). The adjusted odds of hospital mortality were lower if vasopressin initiation was similar to the rule compared with different (odds ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.91]), a finding consistent across external validation sets.

Conclusions and relevance: In adult patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, the use of vasopressin was variable. A reinforcement learning model developed and validated in several observational datasets recommended more frequent and earlier use of vasopressin than average care patterns and was associated with reduced mortality.

感染性休克的最佳抗利尿激素起始:ovis强化学习研究。
重要性:去甲肾上腺素是脓毒性休克患者的一线血管加压药物。何时以及是否应添加第二种药物,如抗利尿激素,尚不清楚。目的:推导并验证一种强化学习模型,以确定接受去甲肾上腺素治疗脓毒性休克的成人危重患者抗利尿激素的最佳起始规则。设计、设置和参与者:利用2012年至2023年加州5家医院3608名符合败血症-3休克标准的患者的电子健康记录数据,使用强化学习来生成抗利尿激素起始治疗的最佳规则,以改善短期和医院预后。该规则在来自加州数据集的628名患者和来自227家美国医院的3个外部数据集(包括10 217名患者)中进行了评估,使用加权重要性抽样和具有逆概率加权的混合逻辑回归。暴露:在电子健康记录中每小时分组120小时的临床、实验室和治疗变量。主要结局和测量:主要结局为住院死亡率。结果:衍生队列(n = 3608)包括2075名男性(57%),中位(IQR)年龄为63(56-70)岁,休克发作时序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分为5(3-7[范围,0-24,评分越高死亡率越高])。验证队列(n = 10 217)中56%为男性(n = 5743),中位(IQR)年龄为67(57-75)岁,SOFA评分为6(4-9)。在验证数据中,该模型显示,与临床医生的作用相比,抗利尿激素启动的患者更多(87%对31%),相对于休克发作更早(中位数[IQR], 4[1-8]对5[1-14]小时),去甲肾上腺素剂量更低(中位数[IQR], 0.20[0.08-0.45]对0.37 [0.17-0.69]μ g/kg/min)。与临床医生的行为相比,该规则在验证数据中与更大的预期奖励相关(加权重要性抽样差异,31 [95% CI, 15-52])。如果抗利尿激素启动与不同的规则相似,则调整后的医院死亡率较低(优势比为0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.91]),这一发现在外部验证集中是一致的。结论及意义:在接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的感染性休克成年患者中,抗利尿激素的使用是可变的。在几个观察数据集中开发并验证的强化学习模型建议比平均护理模式更频繁和更早地使用抗利尿激素,并与降低死亡率相关。
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
48.20
自引率
0.90%
发文量
1569
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. It has been published continuously since 1883. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信