MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty physical parameters have been studied and compared according to different assessment scales in each of 258 patients with obstructive jaundice treated in three medical settings.
RESULTS: The main drawback of the examined scales is the necessity to use the parameters for calculations not included in the medical and economic standards of the Russian Federation. This feature makes these scales unsuitable for making decisions on the tactics of managing a concrete patient in the hospitals of the Russian Federation. The scale developed by us for the assessment of the state severity of patients suffering from obstructive jaundice is completely devoid of subjectivism, does not depend on a surgeon's qualifications, and possesses high specificity to the given disease.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data of ACLF patients from APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was analyzed for 30-day outcomes. The models evaluated at days 0, 4, and 7 of presentation for 30-day mortality were: AARC (model and score), CLIF-C (ACLF score, and OF score), NACSELD-ACLF (model and binary), SOFA, APACHE-II, MELD, MELD-Lactate, and CTP. Evaluation parameters were discrimination (c-indices), calibration [accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV)], Akaike/Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC/BIC), Nagelkerke-R2, relative prediction errors, and odds ratios.
RESULTS: Thirty-day survival of the cohort (n = 2864) was 64.9% and was lowest for final-AARC-grade-III (32.8%) ACLF. Performance parameters of all models were best at day 7 than at day 4 or day 0 (p 12 had the lowest 30-day survival (5.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: APASL-ACLF is often a progressive disease, and models assessed up to day 7 of presentation reliably predict 30-day mortality. Day-7 AARC model is a statistically robust tool for classifying risk of death and accurately predicting 30-day outcomes with relatively lower prediction errors. Day-7 AARC score > 12 may be used as a futility criterion in APASL-ACLF patients.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study.
RESULTS: Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at the single centre ICU in Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA) Malaysia. External validation of APACHE IV involved a cohort of 916 patients who were admitted in 2009. Model performance was assessed through its calibration and discrimination abilities. A first-level customisation using logistic regression approach was also applied to improve model calibration.
RESULTS: APACHE IV exhibited good discrimination, with an area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.78. However, the model's overall fit was observed to be poor, as indicated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (Ĉ = 113, P <0.001). Predicted in-ICU mortality rate (28.1%) was significantly higher than the actual in-ICU mortality rate (18.8%). Model calibration was improved after applying first-level customisation (Ĉ = 6.39, P = 0.78) although discrimination was not affected.
CONCLUSION: APACHE IV is not suitable for application in HSA ICU, without further customisation. The model's lack of fit in the Malaysian study is attributed to differences in the baseline characteristics between HSA ICU and APACHE IV datasets. Other possible factors could be due to differences in clinical practice, quality and services of health care systems between Malaysia and the United States.
METHODS: We conducted a multicentre prospective longitudinal cohort study in 11 Malaysian hospitals including medical/surgical patients (n = 259) who were sedated and ventilated ≥24 h. Patients were followed from ICU admission up to 28 days in ICU with 4-hourly sedation and daily delirium assessments and 180-day mortality. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) ≤-3.
RESULTS: The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 53.1 (15.9) years and APACHE II score of 21.3 (8.2) with hospital and 180-day mortality of 82 (31.7%) and 110/237 (46.4%). Patients were followed for 2,657 ICU days and underwent 13,836 RASS assessments. Midazolam prescription was predominant compared to propofol, given to 241 (93%) versus 72 (28%) patients (P < 0.0001) for 966 (39.6%) versus 183 (7.5%) study days respectively. Deep sedation occurred in (182/257) 71% patients at first assessment and in 159 (61%) patients and 1,658 (59%) of all RASS assessments at 48 h. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for a priori assigned covariates including sedative agents, diagnosis, age, APACHE II score, operative, elective, vasopressors and dialysis showed that early deep sedation was independently associated with longer time to extubation [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-0.97, P = 0.003], hospital death (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18, P < 0.001) and 180-day mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, P = 0.002), but not time to delirium (HR 0.98, P = 0.23). Delirium occurred in 114 (44%) of patients.
CONCLUSION: Irrespective of sedative choice, early deep sedation was independently associated with delayed extubation and higher mortality, and thus was a potentially modifiable risk in interventional trials.