Tyagi Priyamvada, Tullu Milind S, Agrawal Mukesh
Department of Pediatrics, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2018 Dec;7(4):201-206. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673671. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
To compare and validate the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) III, Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2, and PIM 3 scores in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (Indian setting). All consecutively admitted patients in the PICU of a public hospital (excluding those with unstable vital signs or cardiopulmonary resuscitation within 2 hours of admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before admission, and discharge or death in less than 24 hours after admission) were included. PRISM III, PIM 2, and PIM 3 scores were calculated. Mortality discrimination for the three scores was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration was performed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. A total of 350 patients were included (male:female = 1.3:1) over the study duration of 18 months (median age: 12 months [interquartile range: 4-60 months]). Nearly half were infants (47.4%). Patients with central nervous system disease were the highest (22.8%) followed by cardiovascular system (20.6%). Mortality rate was 39.4% (138 deaths). The area under the ROC curve for the PRISM III score was 0.667, and goodness-of-fit test showed no significant difference between the observed and expected mortalities in any of these categories ( > 0.5), showing good calibration. Areas under the ROC curve for the PIM 2 and PIM 3 scores were 0.728 and 0.726, respectively. For both the scores, the goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration. Although all the three scores demonstrate good calibration, the PIM 2 and PIM 3 scores have an advantage regarding the better discrimination ability, ease of data collection, simplicity of computation, and inherent capacity of not being affected by treatment in PICU.
在一家三级医疗儿科重症监护病房(PICU)(印度环境)中比较并验证小儿死亡风险(PRISM)III、小儿死亡率指数(PIM)2和PIM 3评分。纳入公立医院PICU所有连续入院的患者(排除入院后2小时内生命体征不稳定或进行心肺复苏的患者、入院前进行心肺复苏的患者以及入院后不到24小时出院或死亡的患者)。计算PRISM III、PIM 2和PIM 3评分。使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线计算这三个评分的死亡判别能力,并使用Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验进行校准。在18个月的研究期间共纳入350例患者(男:女 = 1.3:1)(中位年龄:12个月[四分位间距:第25至第75百分位数:4 - 60个月])。近一半为婴儿(47.4%)。中枢神经系统疾病患者最多(22.8%),其次是心血管系统疾病患者(20.6%)。死亡率为39.4%(138例死亡)。PRISM III评分的ROC曲线下面积为0.667,拟合优度检验显示在任何类别中观察到的死亡率与预期死亡率之间均无显著差异(P > 0.5),表明校准良好。PIM 2和PIM 3评分的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.728和0.726。对于这两个评分,拟合优度检验均显示校准良好。尽管所有三个评分均显示校准良好,但PIM 2和PIM 3评分在判别能力更强、数据收集更容易、计算更简单以及不受PICU治疗影响的内在能力方面具有优势。