Dataset Information

External validation and comparison of two delirium prediction models in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.

ABSTRACT:

Background

No data is available on delirium prediction models in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), although preexisting delirium prediction models [PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (PRE-DELIRIC) and Early PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (E-PRE-DELIRIC)] were developed and validated based on a population admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we externally validated the usefulness of the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models and compared their predictive performance in patients admitted to the CICU.

Methods

A total of 2,724 patients admitted to the CICU were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2018. Delirium was defined as at least one positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) which was screened at least once every 8 h. The PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated within 24 h of CICU admission, and the E-PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated at CICU admission. The predictive performance of the models was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and the calibration slope was assessed graphically by plotting.

Results

Delirium occurred in 677 patients (24.8%) when the patients were assessed thrice daily until 7 days of the CICU stay. The AUROC curve for the prediction of delirium was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC values [0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.86] than for E-PRE-DELIRIC values (0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.80) [z score of -6.24 (p < 0.001)]. Net reclassification improvement for the prediction of delirium increased by 0.27 (95% CI: 0.21-0.32, p < 0.001). Calibration was acceptable in the PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.170) but not in the E-PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Although both models have good predictive performance for the development of delirium, even in critically ill cardiac patients, the performance of the PRE-DELIRIC model might be superior to that of the E-PRE-DELIRIC model. Further studies are required to confirm our results and design a specific delirium prediction model for CICU patients.

SUBMITTER: Kim SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9382019 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation and comparison of two delirium prediction models in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.

Kim Sung Eun SE Ko Ryoung-Eun RE Na Soo Jin SJ Chung Chi Ryang CR Choi Ki Hong KH Kim Darae D Park Taek Kyu TK Lee Joo Myung JM Song Young Bin YB Choi Jin-Oh JO Hahn Joo-Yong JY Choi Seung-Hyuk SH Gwon Hyeon-Cheol HC Yang Jeong Hoon JH

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20220803

<h4>Background</h4>No data is available on delirium prediction models in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), although preexisting delirium prediction models [PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (PRE-DELIRIC) and Early PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (E-PRE-DELIRIC)] were developed and validated based on a population admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we externally validated the usefulness of the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models and compared their pred ...[more]

PMID: 35990989

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation.MethodsThis 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h.ResultsIn total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of - 2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible.ConclusionsWhile both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

Project description:ObjectivesDelirium is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospitalisation and increased healthcare costs. The number of clinical prediction models (CPM) to predict postoperative delirium has increased exponentially. Our goal is to perform a head-to-head comparison of CPMs predicting postoperative delirium in non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) elderly patients to identify the best performing models.SettingSingle-site university hospital.DesignSecondary analysis of prospective cohort study.Participants and inclusionCPMs published within the timeframe of 1 January 1990 to 1 May 2020 were checked for eligibility (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). For the time period of 1 January 1990 to 1 January 2017, included CPMs were identified in systematic reviews based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. An extended literature search for original studies was performed independently by two authors, including CPMs published between 1 January 2017 and 1 May 2020. External validation was performed using a surgical cohort consisting of 292 elderly non-ICU patients.Primary outcome measuresDiscrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness.Results14 CPMs were eligible for analysis out of 366 full texts reviewed. External validation was previously published for 8/14 (57%) CPMs. C-indices ranged from 0.52 to 0.74, intercepts from -0.02 to 0.34, slopes from -0.74 to 1.96 and scaled Brier from -1.29 to 0.088. Based on predefined criteria, the two best performing models were those of Dai et al (c-index: 0.739; (95% CI: 0.664 to 0.813); intercept: -0.018; slope: 1.96; scaled Brier: 0.049) and Litaker et al (c-index: 0.706 (95% CI: 0.590 to 0.823); intercept: -0.015; slope: 0.995; scaled Brier: 0.088). For the remaining CPMs, model discrimination was considered poor with corresponding c-indices <0.70.ConclusionOur head-to-head analysis identified 2 out of 14 CPMs as best-performing models with a fair discrimination and acceptable calibration. Based on our findings, these models might assist physicians in postoperative delirium risk estimation and patient selection for preventive measures.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 and compare their performance with the Respiratory rate-OXygenation (ROX) index.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and August 2021 at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ICU patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were screened. The exclusion criteria were patients who received IMV within the first 24 h of ICU admission, pregnancy, clinical decision for minimal end-of-life care and missing primary outcome data. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to select predictor variables. Models were based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and lowest AIC with significant p values. Assessment of predictive performance was done for discrimination and calibration. Areas under the curves (AUC)s were compared using DeLong's algorithm. Models were validated externally using an international database.ResultsOf 656 patients screened, 346 patients were included; 155 required IMV (44.8%), 191 did not (55.2%), and 207 patients were male (59.8%). According to the lowest AIC, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), temperature, respiratory effort signals, and leukocytes were identified as predictors of IMV at hospital admission. According to AIC with significant p values, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals were the best predictors of IMV; odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.46 (1.07-2.05), 0.81 (0.72-0.90), 9.13 (3.29-28.67), respectively. The ROX index at admission was lower in the IMV group than in the non-IMV group (7.3 [5.2-9.8] versus 9.6 [6.8-12.9], p < 0.001, respectively). In the external validation population, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROX index was 0.683 (accuracy 63%), the AIC model showed an AUC of 0.703 (accuracy 69%), and the lowest AIC model with significant p values had an AUC of 0.725 (accuracy 79%).ConclusionsIn the development population of ICU patients with COVID-19, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals predicted the need for IMV better than the ROX index. In the external validation population, although the AUCs did not differ significantly, the accuracy was higher when using SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals compared to the ROX index. This suggests that these variables may be more useful in predicting the need for IMV in ICU patients with COVID-19.ClinicaltrialsGov identifierNCT05663528.

Dataset Information

External validation and comparison of two delirium prediction models in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

External validation and comparison of two delirium prediction models in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets