Evaluating Clinical Decision Tools for Intensive Care Unit Admission Prediction in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sarah Stuer, Cedric Dua, Eva Janssens, Philip Verdonck, Sabine Lemoyne, Ken Dewitte, Koenraad G Monsieurs, Filip Haegdorens
{"title":"Evaluating Clinical Decision Tools for Intensive Care Unit Admission Prediction in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.","authors":"Sarah Stuer, Cedric Dua, Eva Janssens, Philip Verdonck, Sabine Lemoyne, Ken Dewitte, Koenraad G Monsieurs, Filip Haegdorens","doi":"10.1016/j.jen.2025.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, several clinical decision rules were promulgated to support triage and optimize resource allocation, particularly regarding intensive care unit admissions. This retrospective cohort study aimed to validate and compare the predictive performance of 3 such systems: the National Early Warning Score 2, the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage score, and the American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification. The primary outcome was intensive care unit admission within 24 hours after ED presentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from unvaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the emergency department of Antwerp University Hospital between March 1, 2020 and June 27, 2021. The National Early Warning Score 2 was calculated during routine care, and the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage and American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification scores were calculated retrospectively. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 490 patients, optimal cutoff values were National Early Warning Score 2 of ≥3, Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage score of ≥8, and American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification of moderate severity. All scores demonstrated good discrimination: areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.885 (National Early Warning Score 2), 0.851 (Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage), and 0.892 (American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification), with no significant differences. The American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification had the highest positive likelihood ratio (3.79), significantly higher than the National Early Warning Score 2 (2.48; P<.001). The National Early Warning Score 2 had the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.04), although differences were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although the American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification demonstrated superior rule-in characteristics, the National Early Warning Score 2 offered the best rule-out characteristics. Given its simplicity, widespread use, and rule-out potential, the National Early Warning Score 2 may offer the greatest practical value to predict intensive care unit admission 24 hours after ED presentation of unvaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019, particularly in a pandemic context.</p>","PeriodicalId":51082,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2025.07.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, several clinical decision rules were promulgated to support triage and optimize resource allocation, particularly regarding intensive care unit admissions. This retrospective cohort study aimed to validate and compare the predictive performance of 3 such systems: the National Early Warning Score 2, the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage score, and the American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification. The primary outcome was intensive care unit admission within 24 hours after ED presentation.

Methods: Data were collected from unvaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the emergency department of Antwerp University Hospital between March 1, 2020 and June 27, 2021. The National Early Warning Score 2 was calculated during routine care, and the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage and American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification scores were calculated retrospectively. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.

Results: Among 490 patients, optimal cutoff values were National Early Warning Score 2 of ≥3, Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage score of ≥8, and American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification of moderate severity. All scores demonstrated good discrimination: areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.885 (National Early Warning Score 2), 0.851 (Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage), and 0.892 (American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification), with no significant differences. The American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification had the highest positive likelihood ratio (3.79), significantly higher than the National Early Warning Score 2 (2.48; P<.001). The National Early Warning Score 2 had the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.04), although differences were not statistically significant.

Discussion: Although the American College of Emergency Physicians coronavirus disease 2019 severity classification demonstrated superior rule-in characteristics, the National Early Warning Score 2 offered the best rule-out characteristics. Given its simplicity, widespread use, and rule-out potential, the National Early Warning Score 2 may offer the greatest practical value to predict intensive care unit admission 24 hours after ED presentation of unvaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019, particularly in a pandemic context.

评估2019冠状病毒病患者重症监护病房入院预测的临床决策工具
导语:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,颁布了几项临床决策规则,以支持分诊和优化资源配置,特别是在重症监护病房入院方面。这项回顾性队列研究旨在验证和比较3个这样的系统的预测性能:国家预警评分2、大流行性呼吸道感染紧急系统分类评分和美国急诊医师学会2019冠状病毒病严重程度分类。主要结局是在ED出现后24小时内入住重症监护病房。方法:收集2020年3月1日至2021年6月27日在安特卫普大学医院急诊科就诊的2019冠状病毒病未接种疫苗患者的数据。在常规护理中计算国家预警评分2分,回顾性计算大流行性呼吸道感染应急系统分诊和美国急诊医师学会冠状病毒病2019严重程度分类评分。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、阳性似然比和阴性似然比评估诊断效果。结果:490例患者中,最佳临界值为国家预警评分2≥3分,大流行性呼吸道感染急诊系统分类评分≥8分,美国急诊医师学会冠状病毒病2019严重程度分级为中度。所有评分均具有良好的判别性:受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为0.885(国家预警评分2)、0.851(大流行性呼吸道感染应急系统分类)和0.892(美国急诊医师学会冠状病毒病2019严重程度分类),差异无统计学意义。美国急诊医师学会冠状病毒病2019严重程度分级的阳性似然比最高(3.79),显著高于国家预警评分2 (2.48);p讨论:尽管美国急诊医师学会冠状病毒病2019严重程度分级具有更优的规则特征,但国家预警评分2提供了最佳的排除特征。鉴于其简单性、广泛使用和排除可能性,国家预警评分2可能在预测未接种2019年冠状病毒病患者出现急诊科24小时后入住重症监护病房方面具有最大的实用价值,特别是在大流行背景下。
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
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
132
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Nursing, the official journal of the Emergency Nurses Association (ENA), is committed to the dissemination of high quality, peer-reviewed manuscripts relevant to all areas of emergency nursing practice across the lifespan. Journal content includes clinical topics, integrative or systematic literature reviews, research, and practice improvement initiatives that provide emergency nurses globally with implications for translation of new knowledge into practice. The Journal also includes focused sections such as case studies, pharmacology/toxicology, injury prevention, trauma, triage, quality and safety, pediatrics and geriatrics. The Journal aims to mirror the goal of ENA to promote: community, governance and leadership, knowledge, quality and safety, and advocacy.
×
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