John A Livesey, Nazir Lone, Emily Black, Richard Broome, Alastair Syme, S. Keating, Laura Elliott, Cara McCahill, Gavin Simpson, Helen Grant, Fiona Auld, S. Garrioch, Alasdair Hay, T. H. Craven
{"title":"Neurological outcome following out of hospital cardiac arrest: Evaluation of performance of existing risk prediction models in a UK cohort","authors":"John A Livesey, Nazir Lone, Emily Black, Richard Broome, Alastair Syme, S. Keating, Laura Elliott, Cara McCahill, Gavin Simpson, Helen Grant, Fiona Auld, S. Garrioch, Alasdair Hay, T. H. Craven","doi":"10.1177/17511437231214146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common problem. Rates of survival are low and a proportion of survivors are left with an unfavourable neurological outcome. Four models have been developed to predict risk of unfavourable outcome at the time of critical care admission – the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), MIRACLE2, Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) models. This evaluation evaluates the performance of these four models in a United Kingdom population and provides comparison to performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. A retrospective evaluation of the performance of the models was conducted over a 43-month period in 414 adult, non-pregnant patients presenting consecutively following non-traumatic OHCA to the five units in our regional critical care network. Scores were generated for each model for where patients had complete data (CAHP = 347, MIRACLE2 = 375, OHCA = 356, TTM = 385). Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) outcome was calculated for each patient at last documented follow up and an unfavourable outcome defined as CPC ⩾ 3. Performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was tested by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each model and comparing the area under the curve (AUC). Best performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was demonstrated by the high risk group of the CAHP score with an AUC of 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91], specificity of 97.1% [95% CI 93.8–100] and positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.3% [95% CI 92.2–100]. The high risk group of the MIRACLE2 model, which is significantly easier to calculate, had an AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.86], specificity of 92.3% [95% CI 87.2–97.4] and PPV of 95.2% [95% CI 91.9–98.4]. The CAHP, MIRACLE2, OHCA and TTM scores all perform comparably in a UK population to the original development and validation cohorts. All four scores outperform APACHE-II in a population of patients resuscitated from OHCA. CAHP and TTM perform best but are more complex to calculate than MIRACLE2, which displays inferior performance.","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437231214146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common problem. Rates of survival are low and a proportion of survivors are left with an unfavourable neurological outcome. Four models have been developed to predict risk of unfavourable outcome at the time of critical care admission – the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), MIRACLE2, Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) models. This evaluation evaluates the performance of these four models in a United Kingdom population and provides comparison to performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. A retrospective evaluation of the performance of the models was conducted over a 43-month period in 414 adult, non-pregnant patients presenting consecutively following non-traumatic OHCA to the five units in our regional critical care network. Scores were generated for each model for where patients had complete data (CAHP = 347, MIRACLE2 = 375, OHCA = 356, TTM = 385). Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) outcome was calculated for each patient at last documented follow up and an unfavourable outcome defined as CPC ⩾ 3. Performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was tested by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each model and comparing the area under the curve (AUC). Best performance for discrimination of unfavourable outcome was demonstrated by the high risk group of the CAHP score with an AUC of 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91], specificity of 97.1% [95% CI 93.8–100] and positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.3% [95% CI 92.2–100]. The high risk group of the MIRACLE2 model, which is significantly easier to calculate, had an AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.86], specificity of 92.3% [95% CI 87.2–97.4] and PPV of 95.2% [95% CI 91.9–98.4]. The CAHP, MIRACLE2, OHCA and TTM scores all perform comparably in a UK population to the original development and validation cohorts. All four scores outperform APACHE-II in a population of patients resuscitated from OHCA. CAHP and TTM perform best but are more complex to calculate than MIRACLE2, which displays inferior performance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.