Case mix, outcomes and comparison of risk prediction models for admissions to adult, general and specialist critical care units for head injury: a secondary analysis of the ICNARC Case Mix Programme Database

被引:32
作者
Hyam, Jonathan A.
Welch, Catherine A.
Harrison, David A.
Menon, David K.
机构
[1] Intens Care Natl Audit & Res Ctr, London WC1H 9HR, England
[2] Charing Cross Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, London, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, England
来源
CRITICAL CARE | 2006年 / 10卷 / Suppl 2期
关键词
D O I
10.1186/cc5066
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction This report describes the case mix and outcome ( mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay) for admissions to ICU for head injury and evaluates the predictive ability of five risk adjustment models. Methods A secondary analysis was conducted of data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) Case Mix Programme, a high quality clinical database, of 374,594 admissions to 171 adult critical care units across England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 1995 to 2005. The discrimination and calibration of five risk prediction models, SAPS II, MPM II, APACHE II and III and the ICNARC model plus raw Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) were compared. Results There were 11,021 admissions following traumatic brain injury identified (3% of all database admissions). Mortality in ICU was 23.5% and in-hospital was 33.5%. Median ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 3.2 and 24 days, respectively, for survivors and 1.6 and 3 days, respectively, for non-survivors. The ICNARC model, SAPS II and MPM II discriminated best between survivors and non-survivors and were better calibrated than raw GCS, APACHE II and III in 5,393 patients eligible for all models. Conclusion Traumatic brain injury requiring intensive care has a high mortality rate. Non-survivors have a short length of ICU and hospital stay. APACHE II and III have poorer calibration and discrimination than SAPS II, MPM II and the ICNARC model in traumatic brain injury; however, no model had perfect calibration.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 46 条
[21]   GOODNESS OF FIT TESTS FOR THE MULTIPLE LOGISTIC REGRESSION-MODEL [J].
HOSMER, DW ;
LEMESHOW, S .
COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS PART A-THEORY AND METHODS, 1980, 9 (10) :1043-1069
[22]   PROGNOSIS OF PATIENTS WITH SEVERE HEAD-INJURY [J].
JENNETT, B ;
TEASDALE, G ;
BRAAKMAN, R ;
MINDERHOUD, J ;
HEIDEN, J ;
KURZE, T .
NEUROSURGERY, 1979, 4 (04) :283-289
[23]  
JENNETT B, 1976, LANCET, V1, P1031
[24]   Head injury in the United Kingdom [J].
Kay, A ;
Teasdale, G .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2001, 25 (09) :1210-1220
[25]   DETERMINANTS OF HEAD-INJURY MORTALITY - IMPORTANCE OF THE LOW-RISK PATIENT [J].
KLAUBER, MR ;
MARSHALL, LF ;
LUERSSEN, TG ;
FRANKOWSKI, R ;
TABADDOR, K ;
EISENBERG, HM .
NEUROSURGERY, 1989, 24 (01) :31-36
[26]   APACHE-II - A SEVERITY OF DISEASE CLASSIFICATION-SYSTEM [J].
KNAUS, WA ;
DRAPER, EA ;
WAGNER, DP ;
ZIMMERMAN, JE .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 1985, 13 (10) :818-829
[27]   THE APACHE-III PROGNOSTIC SYSTEM - RISK PREDICTION OF HOSPITAL MORTALITY FOR CRITICALLY ILL HOSPITALIZED ADULTS [J].
KNAUS, WA ;
WAGNER, DP ;
DRAPER, EA ;
ZIMMERMAN, JE ;
BERGNER, M ;
BASTOS, PG ;
SIRIO, CA ;
MURPHY, DJ ;
LOTRING, T ;
DAMIANO, A ;
HARRELL, FE .
CHEST, 1991, 100 (06) :1619-1636
[28]  
Lane PL, 2000, CAN J SURG, V43, P442
[29]   Outcome after severe head injury: An analysis of prediction based upon comparison of neural network versus logistic regression analysis [J].
Lang, EW ;
Pitts, LH ;
Damron, SL ;
Rutledge, R .
NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1997, 19 (03) :274-280
[30]  
LE GJ, 1993, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V270, P2957