Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff
{"title":"针对儿科患者 30 天院内死亡率的术前风险评分的国际多机构外部验证。","authors":"Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International multi-institutional external validation of preoperative risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality in paediatric patients.\",\"authors\":\"Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
International multi-institutional external validation of preoperative risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality in paediatric patients.
Background: Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.
Methods: Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.
Results: The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.
Conclusions: The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.