Connect with our researchers, identify collaborators, discover their work
Comparison of Early Warning Scoring Systems for Hospitalized Patients With and Without Infection at Risk for In-Hospital Mortality and Transfer to the Intensive Care Unit. Journal Article
Local Library Link: Find It @ Loyola
| Authors: | Liu, VX; Lu, Y; Carey, KA; Gilbert, ER; Afshar, M; Akel, M; Shah, NS; Dolan, J; Winslow, C; Kipnis, P; Edelson, DP; Escobar, GJ; Churpek, MM |
| Article Title: | Comparison of Early Warning Scoring Systems for Hospitalized Patients With and Without Infection at Risk for In-Hospital Mortality and Transfer to the Intensive Care Unit. |
| Abstract: | Importance: Risk scores used in early warning systems exist for general inpatients and patients with suspected infection outside the intensive care unit (ICU), but their relative performance is incompletely characterized. Objective: To compare the performance of tools used to determine points-based risk scores among all hospitalized patients, including those with and without suspected infection, for identifying those at risk for death and/or ICU transfer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cohort design, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted in 21 California and 7 Illinois hospitals between 2006 and 2018 among adult inpatients outside the ICU using points-based scores from 5 commonly used tools: National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Between the Flags (BTF), Quick Sequential Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Data analysis was conducted from February 2019 to January 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk model discrimination was assessed in each state for predicting in-hospital mortality and the combined outcome of ICU transfer or mortality with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratified analyses were also conducted based on suspected infection. Results: The study included 773?477 hospitalized patients in California (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [17.6] years; 416 605 women [53.9%]) and 713?786 hospitalized patients in Illinois (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [19.9] years; 384 830 women [53.9%]). The NEWS exhibited the highest discrimination for mortality (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.87 in California vs AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.86 in Illinois), followed by the MEWS (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.83-0.84 in California vs AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85 in Illinois), qSOFA (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.78-0.79 in California vs AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.78 in Illinois), SIRS (AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.76-0.76 in California vs AUC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76 in Illinois), and BTF (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.73 in California vs AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.74 in Illinois). At specific decision thresholds, the NEWS outperformed the SIRS and qSOFA at all 28 hospitals either by reducing the percentage of at-risk patients who need to be screened by 5% to 20% or increasing the percentage of adverse outcomes identified by 3% to 25%. Conclusions and Relevance: In all hospitalized patients evaluated in this study, including those meeting criteria for suspected infection, the NEWS appeared to display the highest discrimination. Our results suggest that, among commonly used points-based scoring systems, determining the NEWS for inpatient risk stratification could identify patients with and without infection at high risk of mortality. |
| Journal Title: | JAMA network open |
| Publisher: | Unknown |
| Date Published: | 2020 |
