Predicting Cardiac Arrest on the Wards A Nested Case-Control Study

Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Chest (Impact Factor: 7.48). 11/2011; 141(5):1170-6. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-1301
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Current rapid response team activation criteria were not statistically derived using ward vital signs, and the best vital sign predictors of cardiac arrest (CA) have not been determined. In addition, it is unknown when vital signs begin to accurately detect this event prior to CA.
We conducted a nested case-control study of 88 patients experiencing CA on the wards of a university hospital between November 2008 and January 2011, matched 1:4 to 352 control subjects residing on the same ward at the same time as the case CA. Vital signs and Modified Early Warning Scores (MEWS) were compared on admission and during the 48 h preceding CA.
Case patients were older (64 ± 16 years vs 58 ± 18 years; P = .002) and more likely to have had a prior ICU admission than control subjects (41% vs 24%; P = .001), but had similar admission MEWS (2.2 ± 1.3 vs 2.0 ± 1.3; P = .28). In the 48 h preceding CA, maximum MEWS was the best predictor (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82), followed by maximum respiratory rate (AUC 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.78), maximum heart rate (AUC 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.74), maximum pulse pressure index (AUC 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.68), and minimum diastolic BP (AUC 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67). By 48 h prior to CA, the MEWS was higher in cases (P = .005), with increasing disparity leading up to the event.
The MEWS was significantly different between patients experiencing CA and control patients by 48 h prior to the event, but includes poor predictors of CA such as temperature and omits significant predictors such as diastolic BP and pulse pressure index.

28 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BJECTIVE: Rapid response team activation criteria were created using expert opinion and have demonstrated variable accuracy in previous studies. We developed a cardiac arrest risk triage score to predict cardiac arrest and compared it to the Modified Early Warning Score, a commonly cited rapid response team activation criterion. A retrospective cohort study. An academic medical center in the United States. All patients hospitalized from November 2008 to January 2011 who had documented ward vital signs were included in the study. These patients were divided into three cohorts: patients who suffered a cardiac arrest on the wards, patients who had a ward to intensive care unit transfer, and patients who had neither of these outcomes (controls). None. Ward vital signs from admission until discharge, intensive care unit transfer, or ward cardiac arrest were extracted from the medical record. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict cardiac arrest, and the cardiac arrest risk triage score was calculated using the regression coefficients. The model was validated by comparing its accuracy for detecting intensive care unit transfer to the Modified Early Warning Score. Each patient's maximum score prior to cardiac arrest, intensive care unit transfer, or discharge was used to compare the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves between the two models. Eighty-eight cardiac arrest patients, 2,820 intensive care unit transfers, and 44,519 controls were included in the study. The cardiac arrest risk triage score more accurately predicted cardiac arrest than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.84 vs. 0.76; p = .001). At a specificity of 89.9%, the cardiac arrest risk triage score had a sensitivity of 53.4% compared to 47.7% for the Modified Early Warning Score. The cardiac arrest risk triage score also predicted intensive care unit transfer better than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.71 vs. 0.67; p < .001). The cardiac arrest risk triage score is simpler and more accurately detected cardiac arrest and intensive care unit transfer than the Modified Early Warning Score. Implementation of this tool may decrease rapid response team resource utilization and provide a better opportunity to improve patient outcomes than the modified early warning score.
    Critical care medicine 05/2012; 40(7):2102-8. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318250aa5a · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • Critical care medicine 08/2012; 40(8):2509-11. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31825adc46 · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Clinical deterioration of ward patients can result in intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, cardiac arrest (CA), and/or death. These different outcomes have been used to develop and test track and trigger systems, but the impact of outcome selection on the performance of prediction algorithms is unknown. Methods: Patients hospitalized on the wards between November 2008 and August 2011 at an academic hospital were included in the study. Ward vital signs and demographic characteristics were compared across outcomes. The dataset was then split into derivation and validation cohorts. Logistic regression was used to derive four models (one per outcome and a combined outcome) for predicting each event within 24h of a vital sign set. The models were compared in the validation cohort using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 59,643 patients were included in the study (including 109 ward CAs, 291 deaths, and 2638 ICU transfers). Most mean vital signs within 24h of the events differed statistically, with those before death being the most deranged. Validation model AUCs were highest for predicting mortality (range 0.73-0.82), followed by CA (range 0.74-0.76), and lowest for predicting ICU transfer (range 0.68-0.71). Conclusions: Despite differences in vital signs before CA, ICU transfer, and death, the different models performed similarly for detecting each outcome. Mortality was the easiest outcome to predict and ICU transfer the most difficult. Studies should be interpreted with these differences in mind.
    Resuscitation 09/2012; 84(5). DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.09.024 · 4.17 Impact Factor
Show more


28 Reads
Available from