Omar E. Ramadan , Ahmed F. Mady , Mohammed A. Al-Odat , Ahmed N. Balshi , Ahmed W. Aletreby , Taisy J. Stephen , Sheena R. Diolaso , Jennifer Q. Gano , Waleed Th. Aletreby
{"title":"ePOS 评分在预测 ICU 入院后 DNR 标记方面的诊断准确性:前瞻性观察研究(ePOS-DNR)","authors":"Omar E. Ramadan , Ahmed F. Mady , Mohammed A. Al-Odat , Ahmed N. Balshi , Ahmed W. Aletreby , Taisy J. Stephen , Sheena R. Diolaso , Jennifer Q. Gano , Waleed Th. Aletreby","doi":"10.1016/j.jointm.2023.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Resuscitation can sometimes be futile and making a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision is in the best interest of the patient. The electronic poor outcome screening (ePOS) score was developed to predict 6-month poor outcomes of critically ill patients. We explored the diagnostic accuracy of the ePOS score in predicting DNR decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study was conducted at the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia between March and May 2023. Prospectively, we calculated ePOS scores for all eligible consecutive admissions after 48 h in the ICU and recorded the DNR orders. The ability of the score to predict DNR was explored using logistic regression. Youden's ideal cut-off value was calculated using the DeLong method, and different diagnostic accuracy measures were generated with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We enrolled 857 patients, 125 received a DNR order and 732 did not. The average ePOS score of DNR and non-DNR patients was 28.2±10.7 and 15.2±9.7, respectively. ePOS score, as a predictor of DNR order, had an area under receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of 81.8 % (95% CI: 79.0 to 84.3, <em>P</em> <0.001). Youden's ideal cut-off value >17 was associated with a sensitivity of 87.2 (95% CI: 80.0 to 92.5, <em>P</em> <0.001), specificity of 63.9 (95% CI: 60.3 to 67.4, <em>P</em> <0.001), positive predictive value of 29.2 (95% CI: 24.6 to 33.8, <em>P</em> <0.001), negative predictive value of 96.7 (95% CI: 95.1 to 98.3, <em>P</em> <0.001), and diagnostic odds ratio 12.1 (95% CI: 7.0 to 20.8, <em>P</em> <0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this study, the ePOS score performed well as a diagnostic test for patients who will be labeled as DNR during their ICU stay. A cut-off score >17 may help guide clinical decisions to withhold or commence resuscitative measures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73799,"journal":{"name":"Journal of intensive medicine","volume":"4 2","pages":"Pages 216-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X23000798/pdfft?md5=1c3da08ab34201aa2f3d09d3325a9bef&pid=1-s2.0-S2667100X23000798-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of ePOS score in predicting DNR labeling after ICU admission: A prospective observational study (ePOS-DNR)\",\"authors\":\"Omar E. Ramadan , Ahmed F. Mady , Mohammed A. Al-Odat , Ahmed N. Balshi , Ahmed W. Aletreby , Taisy J. Stephen , Sheena R. Diolaso , Jennifer Q. Gano , Waleed Th. Aletreby\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jointm.2023.09.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Resuscitation can sometimes be futile and making a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision is in the best interest of the patient. The electronic poor outcome screening (ePOS) score was developed to predict 6-month poor outcomes of critically ill patients. We explored the diagnostic accuracy of the ePOS score in predicting DNR decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study was conducted at the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia between March and May 2023. Prospectively, we calculated ePOS scores for all eligible consecutive admissions after 48 h in the ICU and recorded the DNR orders. The ability of the score to predict DNR was explored using logistic regression. Youden's ideal cut-off value was calculated using the DeLong method, and different diagnostic accuracy measures were generated with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We enrolled 857 patients, 125 received a DNR order and 732 did not. The average ePOS score of DNR and non-DNR patients was 28.2±10.7 and 15.2±9.7, respectively. ePOS score, as a predictor of DNR order, had an area under receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of 81.8 % (95% CI: 79.0 to 84.3, <em>P</em> <0.001). Youden's ideal cut-off value >17 was associated with a sensitivity of 87.2 (95% CI: 80.0 to 92.5, <em>P</em> <0.001), specificity of 63.9 (95% CI: 60.3 to 67.4, <em>P</em> <0.001), positive predictive value of 29.2 (95% CI: 24.6 to 33.8, <em>P</em> <0.001), negative predictive value of 96.7 (95% CI: 95.1 to 98.3, <em>P</em> <0.001), and diagnostic odds ratio 12.1 (95% CI: 7.0 to 20.8, <em>P</em> <0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this study, the ePOS score performed well as a diagnostic test for patients who will be labeled as DNR during their ICU stay. A cut-off score >17 may help guide clinical decisions to withhold or commence resuscitative measures.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of intensive medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 216-221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X23000798/pdfft?md5=1c3da08ab34201aa2f3d09d3325a9bef&pid=1-s2.0-S2667100X23000798-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of intensive medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X23000798\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of intensive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X23000798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景复苏有时可能是徒劳的,做出不进行复苏(DNR)的决定符合患者的最佳利益。电子不良预后筛查(ePOS)评分是为了预测重症患者 6 个月的不良预后而开发的。我们探讨了 ePOS 评分在预测重症监护病房(ICU)DNR 决定方面的诊断准确性。方法这项研究于 2023 年 3 月至 5 月期间在沙特阿拉伯一家三级转诊医院的重症监护病房进行。我们前瞻性地计算了重症监护室 48 小时后所有符合条件的连续入院患者的 ePOS 分数,并记录了 DNR 命令。我们使用逻辑回归法探讨了该评分预测 DNR 的能力。使用 DeLong 方法计算了尤登理想临界值,并得出了不同的诊断准确性测量值及相应的 95 % 置信区间 (CI)。DNR 和非 DNR 患者的平均 ePOS 评分分别为(28.2±10.7)分和(15.2±9.7)分。ePOS 评分作为 DNR 命令的预测指标,其接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)为 81.8 %(95% CI:79.0 至 84.3,P <0.001)。Youden理想截断值>17的灵敏度为87.2 (95% CI: 80.0 to 92.5, P <0.001),特异度为63.9 (95% CI: 60.3 to 67.4, P <0.001),阳性预测值为29.2 (95% CI: 24.6 to 33.8, P <0.001),阴性预测值为96.7 (95% CI: 95.1 to 98.3, P <0.001),诊断几率比12.1 (95% CI: 7.0 to 20.8, P <0.001)。结论在这项研究中,ePOS评分作为ICU住院期间将被标记为DNR患者的诊断测试表现良好。截断分数>17可能有助于指导临床决定暂停或开始复苏措施。
Diagnostic accuracy of ePOS score in predicting DNR labeling after ICU admission: A prospective observational study (ePOS-DNR)
Background
Resuscitation can sometimes be futile and making a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision is in the best interest of the patient. The electronic poor outcome screening (ePOS) score was developed to predict 6-month poor outcomes of critically ill patients. We explored the diagnostic accuracy of the ePOS score in predicting DNR decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Methods
This study was conducted at the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia between March and May 2023. Prospectively, we calculated ePOS scores for all eligible consecutive admissions after 48 h in the ICU and recorded the DNR orders. The ability of the score to predict DNR was explored using logistic regression. Youden's ideal cut-off value was calculated using the DeLong method, and different diagnostic accuracy measures were generated with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
We enrolled 857 patients, 125 received a DNR order and 732 did not. The average ePOS score of DNR and non-DNR patients was 28.2±10.7 and 15.2±9.7, respectively. ePOS score, as a predictor of DNR order, had an area under receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of 81.8 % (95% CI: 79.0 to 84.3, P <0.001). Youden's ideal cut-off value >17 was associated with a sensitivity of 87.2 (95% CI: 80.0 to 92.5, P <0.001), specificity of 63.9 (95% CI: 60.3 to 67.4, P <0.001), positive predictive value of 29.2 (95% CI: 24.6 to 33.8, P <0.001), negative predictive value of 96.7 (95% CI: 95.1 to 98.3, P <0.001), and diagnostic odds ratio 12.1 (95% CI: 7.0 to 20.8, P <0.001).
Conclusions
In this study, the ePOS score performed well as a diagnostic test for patients who will be labeled as DNR during their ICU stay. A cut-off score >17 may help guide clinical decisions to withhold or commence resuscitative measures.