9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of delirium prediction model for critically ill adults parameterized to ICU admission acuity

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Risk prediction models allow clinicians to forecast which individuals are at a higher risk for developing a particular outcome. We developed and internally validated a delirium prediction model for incident delirium parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity.

          Methods

          This retrospective, observational, fourteen medical-surgical ICU cohort study evaluated consecutive delirium-free adults surviving hospital stay with ICU length of stay (LOS) greater than or equal to 24 hours with both an admission APACHE II score and an admission type (e.g., elective post-surgery, emergency post-surgery, non-surgical) in whom delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Risk factors included in the model were readily available in electric medical records. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic (LASSO) regression was used for model development. Discrimination was determined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Internal validation was performed by cross-validation. Predictive performance was determined using measures of accuracy and clinical utility was assessed by decision-curve analysis.

          Results

          A total of 8,878 patients were included. Delirium incidence was 49.9% (n = 4,431). The delirium prediction model was parameterized to seven patient cohorts, admission type (3 cohorts) or mean quartile APACHE II score (4 cohorts). All parameterized cohort models were well calibrated. The AUC ranged from 0.67 to 0.78 (95% confidence intervals [CI] ranged from 0.63 to 0.79). Model accuracy varied across admission types; sensitivity ranged from 53.2% to 63.9% while specificity ranged from 69.0% to 74.6%. Across mean quartile APACHE II scores, sensitivity ranged from 58.2% to 59.7% while specificity ranged from 70.1% to 73.6%. The clinical utility of the parameterized cohort prediction model to predict and prevent incident delirium was greater than preventing incident delirium by treating all or none of the patients.

          Conclusions

          Our results support external validation of a prediction model parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity to predict a patients’ risk for ICU delirium. Classification of patients’ risk for ICU delirium by admission acuity may allow for efficient initiation of prevention measures based on individual risk profiles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

            There is increasing interest in utilizing novel markers of cardiovascular disease risk, and consequently, there is a need to assess the value of their use. This scientific statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods. An adequate evaluation of a novel risk marker requires a sound research design, a representative at-risk population, and an adequate number of outcome events. Studies of a novel marker should report the degree to which it adds to the prognostic information provided by standard risk markers. No single statistical measure provides all the information needed to assess a novel marker, so measures of both discrimination and accuracy should be reported. The clinical value of a marker should be assessed by its effect on patient management and outcomes. In general, a novel risk marker should be evaluated in several phases, including initial proof of concept, prospective validation in independent populations, documentation of incremental information when added to standard risk markers, assessment of effects on patient management and outcomes, and ultimately, cost-effectiveness.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

              Clinical prediction rules, sometimes called clinical decision rules, have proliferated in recent years. However, very few have undergone formal impact analysis, the standard of evidence to assess their impact on patient care. Without impact analysis, clinicians cannot know whether using a prediction rule will be beneficial or harmful. This paper reviews standards of evidence for developing and evaluating prediction rules; important differences between prediction rules and decision rules; how to assess the potential clinical impact of a prediction rule before translating it into a decision rule; methodologic issues critical to successful impact analysis, including defining outcome measures and estimating sample size; the importance of close collaboration between clinical investigators and practicing clinicians before, during, and after impact analysis; and the need to measure both efficacy and effectiveness when analyzing a decision rule's clinical impact. These considerations should inform future development, evaluation, and use of all clinical prediction or decision rules.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                19 August 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 8
                : e0237639
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [2 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [3 ] O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [4 ] Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [5 ] Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [6 ] PolicyWise for Children & Families, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [7 ] Tennessee Valley Veteran’s Affairs Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center, Nashville, TN, United States of America
                [8 ] Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States of America
                [9 ] Department of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, Canada
                University of Colorado Denver, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1157-884X
                Article
                PONE-D-20-04190
                10.1371/journal.pone.0237639
                7437909
                32813717
                3a466988-8c10-4d7e-82d5-60451f26291f
                © 2020 Cherak et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 February 2020
                : 29 July 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 18
                Funding
                This work was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Research Award to SC (#394654).
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Forecasting
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Forecasting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Hospitals
                Intensive Care Units
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Hospitals
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Cohort Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Neurology
                Coma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Custom metadata
                Data cannot be shared publicly because of patient confidentiality. Data may be available upon reasonable request from the University of Calgary research ethics board and Alberta Health Services research and innovation administration (contact via chreb@ 123456ucalgary.ca and research.administration@ 123456ahs.ca ) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article