Poloniecki Jan, Sismanidis Charalambos, Bland Martin, Jones Paul
Community Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE.
BMJ. 2004 Feb 14;328(7436):375. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37956.520567.44. Epub 2004 Jan 29.
To examine the efficacy of different methods of detecting a high death rate and determining whether an increase in deaths after heart transplantation could be explained by chance.
Retrospective analysis of deaths after heart transplantation. Seven methods were used: mortality above national average, mortality excessively above national average, test of moving average mortality, test of number of consecutive deaths, sequential probability ratio test (SPRT), cusum graph with v-mask, and CRAM chart. The national average mortality was not available and a rate of 15% was used instead as the benchmark.
Regional cardiothoracic unit.
All 371 patients who received a heart transplant in the programme, 1986-2000.
30 day survival after transplantation.
All methods provided evidence that the 30 day mortality had been high at some stage. The probability that the finding was a false positive depended on which test was used. At the end of the series the average mortality, sequential probability ratio, and cusum tests indicated a level of deaths higher than the benchmark while the remaining four tests yielded negative results.
If the decision to test for outlying mortality is made retrospectively, in the light of the data, it is not possible to determine the false positive rate. Prospective on-site mortality monitoring with the CRAM chart is recommended as this method can quantify the death rate and identify periods when an audit of cases is indicated, even when data from other institutions are not available. A hospital mortality monitoring group can routinely monitor all deaths in the hospital, by specialty, using hospital episode statistics (HES) data and appropriate statistical methods.
研究不同方法检测高死亡率的有效性,并确定心脏移植后死亡人数增加是否可能是偶然因素所致。
对心脏移植后的死亡情况进行回顾性分析。使用了七种方法:高于全国平均水平的死亡率、远高于全国平均水平的死亡率、移动平均死亡率检验、连续死亡数检验、序贯概率比检验(SPRT)、带v形掩码的累积和图以及CRAM图。由于无法获取全国平均死亡率,故采用15%的比率作为基准。
地区心胸外科单位。
1986 - 2000年该项目中接受心脏移植的所有371例患者。
移植后30天生存率。
所有方法均表明在某些阶段30天死亡率较高。该发现为假阳性的概率取决于所使用的检验方法。在该系列研究结束时,平均死亡率、序贯概率比检验和累积和检验表明死亡水平高于基准,而其余四种检验得出阴性结果。
如果根据数据进行回顾性地检测异常死亡率,就无法确定假阳性率。建议采用CRAM图进行前瞻性现场死亡率监测,因为即使没有其他机构的数据,这种方法也能量化死亡率,并确定需要进行病例审核的时期。医院死亡率监测小组可以利用医院病历统计(HES)数据和适当的统计方法,按专业对医院内的所有死亡情况进行常规监测。