Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
AUROC
Area under the ROC curve
AUPRC
Area under the PR curve
CAM-ICU
Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU
E-PRE-DELIRIC
Early prediction model for delirium in ICU patients
ICU
Intensive care unit
LoS
Length of stay
PPV
Positive predictive value
PR
Precision-recall
ROC
Receiver operator characteristic
Introduction
E-PRE-DELIRIC is a point-of-admission ICU delirium risk prediction tool [1], with reported good or moderate performance [2‐4]. In this study, we assessed its performance in a large UK teaching hospital general ICU using routinely collected data, as approved by the local Research Data Governance Committee.
Methods
We retrospectively analysed data for 2445 consecutive ICU admissions (November 2014 to June 2017). Patients were routinely assessed for delirium, using twice daily Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment [5]. As in previous E-PRE-DELIRIC studies [1‐4], delirium was defined as any positive CAM-ICU assessment or antipsychotic initiation while on ICU.
Anzeige
We adopted the original E-PRE-DELIRIC exclusion criteria [1], excluding 683 ICU admissions for ICU stay < 24 h (425 admissions), incomplete CAM-ICU data (152), delirium on admission (50), comatose throughout entire ICU stay (47), and age under 18 (9). Sixteen admissions were excluded due to missing E-PRE-DELIRIC components; 1746 admissions (1569 unique patients) remained for analysis; this 71.4% inclusion rate is consistent with previous studies (Table 1).
Table 1
Patient characteristics in this study, the E-PRE-DELIRIC development dataset [1] and other validation studies [2‐4]
Seven hundred sixty-three delirium cases were identified (43.7% of ICU admissions), a higher incidence than reported previously (Table 1). This is likely due to differences in the study population compared to previous studies: more patients were classified as urgent, the mean APACHE II score was higher, and median length of stay (LoS) was longer (Table 1).
The mean E-PRE-DELIRIC score was 0.269 (Q1–Q3; 0.154–0.371). The histogram of E-PRE-DELIRIC scores shows extensive overlap between patients who did and did not develop delirium (Fig. 1a). The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (Fig. 1b) and the precision-recall (PR) curve (Fig. 1c), showing precision (positive predictive value (PPV)) against recall (sensitivity), both indicate moderate-to-poor discriminative performance. The area under the ROC (AUROC) was 0.628 (95% CI 0.602–0.653). The area under the PR curve (AUPRC) was 0.534. For sensitivity > 0.1, PPV was between 0.437 and 0.585, indicating only around half of the patients predicted to develop delirium actually did, in a population with 43.7% incidence. Refitting the E-PRE-DELIRIC logistic regression model to our data hardly improved discrimination: AUROC was 0.648 (95% CI 0.622–0.673) and AUPRC was 0.566.
Fig. 1
a Histogram of predicted risk of delirium by delirium status. b Receiver operator characteristic plot, with labels indicating the corresponding threshold and the dashed line indicating the line of no discrimination. c Precision-recall plot, with the 43.7% observed incidence indicated by the dashed line. d Calibration plot (with 95% CI), by tenths of predicted risk, with the dashed line indicating perfect calibration
×
The calibration plot, of predicted risk against observed delirium rate, shows the risk of delirium is considerably underestimated, especially in patients with predicted risk of delirium less than 0.5 (Fig. 1d). Poor calibration is corroborated by the calibration slope model logit(probability of delirium) = alpha + beta ×logit(p), where p is the E-PRE-DELIRIC score [6]. The estimated slope beta = 0.58 (95% CI 0.46–0.71) is significantly below 1, indicating the predicted probabilities are overly variable; and the estimated intercept alpha = 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.95) is significantly above 0 when fixing beta = 1, indicating the predicted probabilities are predominantly too low. E-PRE-DELIRIC is particularly poorly calibrated for the surgical patients in the study, many of whom have major intraabdominal pathology: those with predicted risk < 10% had an observed incidence of 26%.
Anzeige
Of 763 delirium cases, 563 were CAM-ICU positive and 200 were included due to antipsychotic initiation. When including only CAM-ICU-positive delirium, calibration was improved (alpha = 0.29) but remained overly variable (beta = 0.52), while discrimination was similar (AUROC 0.615; AUPRC 0.396, with 32.2% observed incidence).
While E-PRE-DELIRIC is intended as a point-of-admission score, some of its exclusion criteria are retrospective (LoS; CAM-ICU completeness; comatose throughout). To assess real-world performance, we repeated our analysis without these criteria. The AUROC (0.615) and AUPRC (0.423, with 35.0% observed incidence) remained similar.
Conclusion
In this population, the E-PRE-DELIRIC score is not as discriminative or as well calibrated as previously reported. PPV was only slightly higher than delirium incidence, meaning the utility of E-PRE-DELIRIC for guiding clinical decision-making in this population is limited.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), with data provided by Cambridge Clinical Informatics (Led by Drs. Afzal Chaudhry and Lydia Drumright). RJBG was supported by the UK Medical Research Council [programme code MC_UU_00002/2]. We are grateful to Vince Taylor for his careful work extracting data for this study.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The use of the anonymous data used in this study was approved by the Cambridge Clinical Informatics Research Data Governance Committee.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.
Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.
Personen mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen, die von einfühlsamen Ärzten und Ärztinnen betreut werden, berichten über weniger Beschwerden und eine bessere Lebensqualität.
Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.
Update AINS
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.
