[Impact of critical care warning platform on the clinical prognosis of patients transferred from internal medical ward to intensive care unit: a real-world cohort study].

Objective: To evaluate the impact of critical care warning platform (CWP) on clinical outcomes of patients transferred from internal medical ward to intensive care unit (ICU) based on real-world data.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The patients transferred from internal medical ward to ICU of Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, between January 2022 and October 2024, were enrolled. They were divided into critical care warning group and conventional treatment group based on whether they were connected to the CWP. The patients in the critical care warning group were connected to the CWP, which collected real-time vital signs and treatment data. The platform automatically calculated severity scores, generated individualized risk assessments, and triggered warning alerts, allowing clinicians to adjust treatment plans accordingly. The patients in the conventional treatment group were not connected to the CWP and relied on conventional clinical judgment and nursing measures for treatment management. Baseline characteristics [gender, age, body mass index (BMI), admission type, severity score of illness, underlying diseases, and disease type at ICU admission], primary clinical outcome (in-hospital mortality), and secondary clinical outcomes [ICU mortality, length of ICU stay, total length of hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) status] were collected. Multivariate Logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of CWP on in-hospital death, and subgroup analyses were performed based on different patient characteristics.

Results: A total of 1 281 patients were enrolled, with 768 in the critical care warning group and 513 in the conventional treatment group. Compared with the conventional treatment group, the proportion of patients in the critical care warning group with underlying diseases of diabetes and malignancy and transferred to ICU due to sepsis was lowered, however, there were no statistically significant differences in other baseline characteristics between the two groups. Regarding the primary clinical outcome, the in-hospital mortality in the critical care warning group was significantly lower than that in the conventional treatment group [17.6% (135/768) vs. 25.7% (132/513), P < 0.01]. For secondary clinical outcomes, compared with the conventional treatment group, the patients in the critical care warning group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation within 28 days [days: 2 (1, 6) vs. 2 (1, 8), P < 0.05], significantly shorter length of ICU stay [days: 3 (2, 8) vs. 4 (2, 10), P < 0.01], and significantly lower ICU mortality [15.1% (116/768) vs. 21.4% (110/513), P < 0.01]. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that, after adjusting for age and underlying diseases, the use of CWP was significantly associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality among patients transferred from internal medical ward to ICU [odds ratio (OR) = 0.670, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.502-0.894, P = 0.006]. Further subgroup analysis revealed that, among patients transferred to ICU due to sepsis, the use of CWP significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.514, 95%CI was 0.367-0.722, P < 0.001). In patients aged ≥ 70 years old (OR = 0.587, 95%CI was 0.415-0.831, P = 0.003) and those with underlying diseases of malignancy (OR = 0.124, 95%CI was 0.046-0.330, P < 0.001), CWP also showed significant protective effects on in-hospital prognosis.

Conclusion: The use of CWP is significantly associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality among patients transferred from internal medical ward to ICU, demonstrating its potential in assessing the deterioration of hospitalized patients.