预测肝硬化急诊科患者死亡率的临床决策工具

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Swetha Parvataneni, Michelle Haugh, Yara Sarkis, Brittany Baker, Lauren D Nephew, Marwan S Ghabril, Raj Vuppalanchi, Eric S Orman, Naga P Chalasani, Archita P Desai, Nicholas Eric Harrison
{"title":"预测肝硬化急诊科患者死亡率的临床决策工具","authors":"Swetha Parvataneni, Michelle Haugh, Yara Sarkis, Brittany Baker, Lauren D Nephew, Marwan S Ghabril, Raj Vuppalanchi, Eric S Orman, Naga P Chalasani, Archita P Desai, Nicholas Eric Harrison","doi":"10.1111/acem.15088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinical decision instruments (CDIs) could be useful to aid risk stratification and disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with cirrhosis. Our primary objective was to derive and internally validate a novel Cirrhosis Risk Instrument for Stratifying Post-Emergency department mortality (CRISPE) for the outcomes of 14- and 30-day post-ED mortality. Secondarily, we externally validated the existing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for explicit use in ED patients and prediction of the same outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 2093 adults with cirrhosis, at 16 sites in a statewide health system, was analyzed for 119 candidate variables available at ED disposition. LASSO with 10-fold cross-validation was used in variable selection for 14-day (CRISPE-14) and 30-day (CRISPE-30) logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each variant of the CRISPE and MELD scores and compared via Delong's test. Predictions were compared to actual ED disposition for predictive value and reclassification statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median (interquartile range [IQR]) characteristics of the cohort were age 62 (53-70) years and MELD 3.0 13.0 (8.0-20.0). Mortality was 4.3% and 8.5% at 14 and 30 days, respectively. CRISPE-14 and CRISPE-30 outperformed each MELD variant, achieving AUROC of 0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866) and 0.829 (0.796-0.861), respectively. MELD 3.0 AUROCs were 0.724 (0.667-0.781) and 0.715 (0.672-0.781), respectively. Compared to ED disposition, CRISPE-14, CRISPE-30, and MELD 3.0 significantly improved positive and negative predictive value and net reclassification index at multiple cutoffs. Applying CRISPE-30 (cutoff 4.5) favorably reclassified one net ED disposition for mortality for every 12 patients, while MELD 3.0 net reclassified one disposition per 84 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CDIs may be useful in risk-stratifying ED patients with cirrhosis and aiding disposition decision making. The novel CRISPE CDI showed powerful performance and requires external validation, while the existing MELD 3.0 score has moderate performance and is now externally-validated in an ED population for short-term mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical decision instruments for predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis seeking emergency department care.\",\"authors\":\"Swetha Parvataneni, Michelle Haugh, Yara Sarkis, Brittany Baker, Lauren D Nephew, Marwan S Ghabril, Raj Vuppalanchi, Eric S Orman, Naga P Chalasani, Archita P Desai, Nicholas Eric Harrison\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.15088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinical decision instruments (CDIs) could be useful to aid risk stratification and disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with cirrhosis. Our primary objective was to derive and internally validate a novel Cirrhosis Risk Instrument for Stratifying Post-Emergency department mortality (CRISPE) for the outcomes of 14- and 30-day post-ED mortality. Secondarily, we externally validated the existing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for explicit use in ED patients and prediction of the same outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 2093 adults with cirrhosis, at 16 sites in a statewide health system, was analyzed for 119 candidate variables available at ED disposition. LASSO with 10-fold cross-validation was used in variable selection for 14-day (CRISPE-14) and 30-day (CRISPE-30) logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each variant of the CRISPE and MELD scores and compared via Delong's test. Predictions were compared to actual ED disposition for predictive value and reclassification statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median (interquartile range [IQR]) characteristics of the cohort were age 62 (53-70) years and MELD 3.0 13.0 (8.0-20.0). Mortality was 4.3% and 8.5% at 14 and 30 days, respectively. CRISPE-14 and CRISPE-30 outperformed each MELD variant, achieving AUROC of 0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866) and 0.829 (0.796-0.861), respectively. MELD 3.0 AUROCs were 0.724 (0.667-0.781) and 0.715 (0.672-0.781), respectively. Compared to ED disposition, CRISPE-14, CRISPE-30, and MELD 3.0 significantly improved positive and negative predictive value and net reclassification index at multiple cutoffs. Applying CRISPE-30 (cutoff 4.5) favorably reclassified one net ED disposition for mortality for every 12 patients, while MELD 3.0 net reclassified one disposition per 84 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CDIs may be useful in risk-stratifying ED patients with cirrhosis and aiding disposition decision making. The novel CRISPE CDI showed powerful performance and requires external validation, while the existing MELD 3.0 score has moderate performance and is now externally-validated in an ED population for short-term mortality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15088\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15088","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:临床决策工具(cdi)可用于帮助急诊室(ED)肝硬化患者的风险分层和处置。我们的主要目的是推导并内部验证一种新的肝硬化风险工具,用于对急诊科后14天和30天的死亡率进行分层(CRISPE)。其次,我们从外部验证了现有的终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分,以明确用于ED患者并预测相同的结果。方法:对全国卫生系统16个站点的2093名成年肝硬化患者进行队列分析,分析ED处置的119个候选变量。在14天(CRISPE-14)和30天(CRISPE-30)逻辑回归模型的变量选择中,采用LASSO进行10倍交叉验证。计算每个CRISPE和MELD评分变体的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC),并通过Delong测试进行比较。将预测值与实际ED处置值进行预测值和再分类统计。结果:队列的中位(四分位间距[IQR])特征为年龄62(53-70)岁,MELD 3.0(13.0)(8.0-20.0)。14天和30天死亡率分别为4.3%和8.5%。CRISPE-14和CRISPE-30优于所有MELD变体,AUROC分别为0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866)和0.829(0.796-0.861)。MELD 3.0 auroc分别为0.724(0.667-0.781)和0.715(0.672-0.781)。与ED配置相比,CRISPE-14、CRISPE-30和MELD 3.0在多个截止点上显著提高了阳性和阴性预测值和净重分类指数。应用CRISPE-30(截止时间为4.5)对每12例患者的死亡率重新分类一个净ED倾向,而MELD 3.0对每84例患者的死亡率重新分类一个净ED倾向。结论:cdi可用于肝硬化ED患者的风险分层和辅助处置决策。新型CRISPE CDI表现出强大的性能,需要外部验证,而现有的MELD 3.0评分表现中等,目前正在ED人群中进行短期死亡率的外部验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical decision instruments for predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis seeking emergency department care.

Objective: Clinical decision instruments (CDIs) could be useful to aid risk stratification and disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with cirrhosis. Our primary objective was to derive and internally validate a novel Cirrhosis Risk Instrument for Stratifying Post-Emergency department mortality (CRISPE) for the outcomes of 14- and 30-day post-ED mortality. Secondarily, we externally validated the existing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for explicit use in ED patients and prediction of the same outcomes.

Methods: A cohort of 2093 adults with cirrhosis, at 16 sites in a statewide health system, was analyzed for 119 candidate variables available at ED disposition. LASSO with 10-fold cross-validation was used in variable selection for 14-day (CRISPE-14) and 30-day (CRISPE-30) logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each variant of the CRISPE and MELD scores and compared via Delong's test. Predictions were compared to actual ED disposition for predictive value and reclassification statistics.

Results: Median (interquartile range [IQR]) characteristics of the cohort were age 62 (53-70) years and MELD 3.0 13.0 (8.0-20.0). Mortality was 4.3% and 8.5% at 14 and 30 days, respectively. CRISPE-14 and CRISPE-30 outperformed each MELD variant, achieving AUROC of 0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866) and 0.829 (0.796-0.861), respectively. MELD 3.0 AUROCs were 0.724 (0.667-0.781) and 0.715 (0.672-0.781), respectively. Compared to ED disposition, CRISPE-14, CRISPE-30, and MELD 3.0 significantly improved positive and negative predictive value and net reclassification index at multiple cutoffs. Applying CRISPE-30 (cutoff 4.5) favorably reclassified one net ED disposition for mortality for every 12 patients, while MELD 3.0 net reclassified one disposition per 84 patients.

Conclusions: CDIs may be useful in risk-stratifying ED patients with cirrhosis and aiding disposition decision making. The novel CRISPE CDI showed powerful performance and requires external validation, while the existing MELD 3.0 score has moderate performance and is now externally-validated in an ED population for short-term mortality.

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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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