院外心脏骤停后的神经系统预后:在英国队列中评估现有风险预测模型的性能

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
John A Livesey, Nazir Lone, Emily Black, Richard Broome, Alastair Syme, S. Keating, Laura Elliott, Cara McCahill, Gavin Simpson, Helen Grant, Fiona Auld, S. Garrioch, Alasdair Hay, T. H. Craven
{"title":"院外心脏骤停后的神经系统预后:在英国队列中评估现有风险预测模型的性能","authors":"John A Livesey, Nazir Lone, Emily Black, Richard Broome, Alastair Syme, S. Keating, Laura Elliott, Cara McCahill, Gavin Simpson, Helen Grant, Fiona Auld, S. Garrioch, Alasdair Hay, T. H. Craven","doi":"10.1177/17511437231214146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common problem. Rates of survival are low and a proportion of survivors are left with an unfavourable neurological outcome. Four models have been developed to predict risk of unfavourable outcome at the time of critical care admission – the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), MIRACLE2, Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) models. This evaluation evaluates the performance of these four models in a United Kingdom population and provides comparison to performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. A retrospective evaluation of the performance of the models was conducted over a 43-month period in 414 adult, non-pregnant patients presenting consecutively following non-traumatic OHCA to the five units in our regional critical care network. Scores were generated for each model for where patients had complete data (CAHP = 347, MIRACLE2 = 375, OHCA = 356, TTM = 385). Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) outcome was calculated for each patient at last documented follow up and an unfavourable outcome defined as CPC ⩾ 3. Performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was tested by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each model and comparing the area under the curve (AUC). Best performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was demonstrated by the high risk group of the CAHP score with an AUC of 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91], specificity of 97.1% [95% CI 93.8–100] and positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.3% [95% CI 92.2–100]. The high risk group of the MIRACLE2 model, which is significantly easier to calculate, had an AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.86], specificity of 92.3% [95% CI 87.2–97.4] and PPV of 95.2% [95% CI 91.9–98.4]. The CAHP, MIRACLE2, OHCA and TTM scores all perform comparably in a UK population to the original development and validation cohorts. All four scores outperform APACHE-II in a population of patients resuscitated from OHCA. CAHP and TTM perform best but are more complex to calculate than MIRACLE2, which displays inferior performance.","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurological outcome following out of hospital cardiac arrest: Evaluation of performance of existing risk prediction models in a UK cohort\",\"authors\":\"John A Livesey, Nazir Lone, Emily Black, Richard Broome, Alastair Syme, S. Keating, Laura Elliott, Cara McCahill, Gavin Simpson, Helen Grant, Fiona Auld, S. Garrioch, Alasdair Hay, T. H. Craven\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17511437231214146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common problem. Rates of survival are low and a proportion of survivors are left with an unfavourable neurological outcome. Four models have been developed to predict risk of unfavourable outcome at the time of critical care admission – the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), MIRACLE2, Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) models. This evaluation evaluates the performance of these four models in a United Kingdom population and provides comparison to performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. A retrospective evaluation of the performance of the models was conducted over a 43-month period in 414 adult, non-pregnant patients presenting consecutively following non-traumatic OHCA to the five units in our regional critical care network. Scores were generated for each model for where patients had complete data (CAHP = 347, MIRACLE2 = 375, OHCA = 356, TTM = 385). Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) outcome was calculated for each patient at last documented follow up and an unfavourable outcome defined as CPC ⩾ 3. Performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was tested by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each model and comparing the area under the curve (AUC). Best performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was demonstrated by the high risk group of the CAHP score with an AUC of 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91], specificity of 97.1% [95% CI 93.8–100] and positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.3% [95% CI 92.2–100]. The high risk group of the MIRACLE2 model, which is significantly easier to calculate, had an AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.86], specificity of 92.3% [95% CI 87.2–97.4] and PPV of 95.2% [95% CI 91.9–98.4]. The CAHP, MIRACLE2, OHCA and TTM scores all perform comparably in a UK population to the original development and validation cohorts. All four scores outperform APACHE-II in a population of patients resuscitated from OHCA. CAHP and TTM perform best but are more complex to calculate than MIRACLE2, which displays inferior performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437231214146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437231214146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

院外心脏骤停(OHCA)是一个常见问题。存活率很低,一部分幸存者的神经系统状况不佳。目前已开发出四种模型来预测重症监护入院时出现不良预后的风险,即心脏骤停医院预后(CAHP)、MIRACLE2、院外心脏骤停(OHCA)和目标体温管理(TTM)模型。该评估对这四种模型在英国人群中的表现进行了评估,并与急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II (APACHE-II) 评分的表现进行了比较。在为期 43 个月的时间里,我们对 414 名在非创伤性 OHCA 后连续到我们地区重症监护网络的五个单位就诊的成年非孕妇患者的模型性能进行了回顾性评估。为每个模型生成了患者完整数据的分数(CAHP = 347、MIRACLE2 = 375、OHCA = 356、TTM = 385)。在最后一次有记录的随访中计算每位患者的脑功能分类(CPC)结果,CPC ⩾3定义为不利结果。通过为每个模型生成接收者操作特征曲线(ROC)并比较曲线下面积(AUC),测试了判别不利结果的性能。CAHP 评分的高风险组在判别不利结果方面表现最佳,其 AUC 为 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91],特异性为 97.1% [95% CI 93.8-100],阳性预测值 (PPV) 为 96.3% [95% CI 92.2-100]。MIRACLE2 模型的高风险组明显更容易计算,其 AUC 为 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.86],特异性为 92.3% [95% CI 87.2-97.4],PPV 为 95.2% [95% CI 91.9-98.4]。CAHP、MIRACLE2、OHCA 和 TTM 评分在英国人群中的表现均与原始开发和验证队列相当。在 OHCA 复苏患者群体中,所有四个评分均优于 APACHE-II。CAHP 和 TTM 表现最好,但计算起来比 MIRACLE2 复杂,后者表现较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Neurological outcome following out of hospital cardiac arrest: Evaluation of performance of existing risk prediction models in a UK cohort
Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common problem. Rates of survival are low and a proportion of survivors are left with an unfavourable neurological outcome. Four models have been developed to predict risk of unfavourable outcome at the time of critical care admission – the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), MIRACLE2, Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) models. This evaluation evaluates the performance of these four models in a United Kingdom population and provides comparison to performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. A retrospective evaluation of the performance of the models was conducted over a 43-month period in 414 adult, non-pregnant patients presenting consecutively following non-traumatic OHCA to the five units in our regional critical care network. Scores were generated for each model for where patients had complete data (CAHP = 347, MIRACLE2 = 375, OHCA = 356, TTM = 385). Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) outcome was calculated for each patient at last documented follow up and an unfavourable outcome defined as CPC ⩾ 3. Performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was tested by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each model and comparing the area under the curve (AUC). Best performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was demonstrated by the high risk group of the CAHP score with an AUC of 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91], specificity of 97.1% [95% CI 93.8–100] and positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.3% [95% CI 92.2–100]. The high risk group of the MIRACLE2 model, which is significantly easier to calculate, had an AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.86], specificity of 92.3% [95% CI 87.2–97.4] and PPV of 95.2% [95% CI 91.9–98.4]. The CAHP, MIRACLE2, OHCA and TTM scores all perform comparably in a UK population to the original development and validation cohorts. All four scores outperform APACHE-II in a population of patients resuscitated from OHCA. CAHP and TTM perform best but are more complex to calculate than MIRACLE2, which displays inferior performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
×
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