Bundle compliance patterns in septic shock and their association with patient outcomes: an unsupervised cluster analysis.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03836-9
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脓毒性休克的束依从性模式及其与患者预后的关系:一项无监督聚类分析。
在严格的时间限制内坚持基于捆绑的护理建议提出了一个深刻的挑战。这些束中的元素具有不同程度的重要性。我们的目的是评估存活脓毒症运动(SSC)一小时束依从性模式及其与患者预后的关系。利用重症监护医疗信息市场- iv 1.0数据集,本回顾性队列研究评估了2008年至2019年期间入住重症监护病房的脓毒症患者。评估5小时1小时一揽子干预措施的执行情况。使用无监督机器学习将具有相似治疗概况的患者分类为集群。主要结局包括住院死亡率和1年死亡率。确定了四个集群:c# 0 (n = 4716)具有最差的包遵从性。c# 1 (n = 1117)具有良好的抗生素粘附性,液体和血清乳酸测量粘附性适中。c# 2 (n = 850)表现出完全坚持乳酸测量,对液体给药、血液培养和血管加压药物的低依从性,而c# 3 (n = 381)完全坚持液体给药,对血管加压药物的要求是整个队列中最高的。校正协变量后,与c# 0相比,c# 1和c# 3与住院死亡率降低相关(校正优势比[aOR] = 0.83;95%置信区间[CI] 0.7 ~ 0.97, aOR = 0.7;95% CI分别为0.53 - 0.91)。c# 1的1年生存率显著提高(校正风险比[aHR] = 0.9;95%可信区间0·81 - 0·99)。我们能够使用无监督机器学习技术识别SSC一小时束依从模式的不同集群,这与患者预后相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Cytisine for smoking cessation in hospitalised smokers with cardiovascular diseases: an observational study. Severe burn injuries and the impact of mental health: insights from 7 years at Switzerland's leading burn center. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and internal-medicine clinicians: observational cohort study. Linezolid-induced neuropathy in Nocardia pneumonia. Detection and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting or non-cardiac surgery: a survey by the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1