Aysun Tekin, Balázs Mosolygó, Nan Huo, Guohui Xiao, Amos Lal
{"title":"Bundle compliance patterns in septic shock and their association with patient outcomes: an unsupervised cluster analysis.","authors":"Aysun Tekin, Balázs Mosolygó, Nan Huo, Guohui Xiao, Amos Lal","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03836-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adhering to bundle-based care recommendations within stringent time constraints presents a profound challenge. Elements within these bundles hold varying degrees of significance. We aimed to evaluate the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) hour-one bundle compliance patterns and their association with patient outcomes. Utilizing the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 1.0 dataset, this retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with sepsis who developed shock and were admitted to the intensive care unit between 2008 and 2019. The execution of five hour-one bundle interventions were assessed. Patients with similar treatment profiles were categorized into clusters using unsupervised machine learning. Primary outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Four clusters were identified: C#0 (n = 4716) had the poorest bundle compliance. C#1 (n = 1117) had perfect antibiotic adherence with modest fluid and serum lactate measurement adherence. C#2 (n = 850) exhibited full adherence to lactate measurement and low adherence to fluid administration, blood culture, and vasopressors, while C#3 (n = 381) achieved complete adherence to fluid administration and the highest adherence to vasopressor requirements in the entire cohort. Adjusting for covariates, C#1 and C#3 were associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality compared to C#0 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0·83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·7-0·97 and aOR = 0·7; 95% CI 0·53-0·91, respectively). C#1 exhibited significantly better 1-year survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0·9; 95%CI 0·81-0·99). We were able to identify distinct clusters of SSC hour-one bundle adherence patterns using unsupervised machine learning techniques, which were associated with patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03836-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Adhering to bundle-based care recommendations within stringent time constraints presents a profound challenge. Elements within these bundles hold varying degrees of significance. We aimed to evaluate the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) hour-one bundle compliance patterns and their association with patient outcomes. Utilizing the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 1.0 dataset, this retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with sepsis who developed shock and were admitted to the intensive care unit between 2008 and 2019. The execution of five hour-one bundle interventions were assessed. Patients with similar treatment profiles were categorized into clusters using unsupervised machine learning. Primary outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Four clusters were identified: C#0 (n = 4716) had the poorest bundle compliance. C#1 (n = 1117) had perfect antibiotic adherence with modest fluid and serum lactate measurement adherence. C#2 (n = 850) exhibited full adherence to lactate measurement and low adherence to fluid administration, blood culture, and vasopressors, while C#3 (n = 381) achieved complete adherence to fluid administration and the highest adherence to vasopressor requirements in the entire cohort. Adjusting for covariates, C#1 and C#3 were associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality compared to C#0 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0·83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·7-0·97 and aOR = 0·7; 95% CI 0·53-0·91, respectively). C#1 exhibited significantly better 1-year survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0·9; 95%CI 0·81-0·99). We were able to identify distinct clusters of SSC hour-one bundle adherence patterns using unsupervised machine learning techniques, which were associated with patient outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.