Prediction of in-hospital mortality in status epilepticus: Evaluation of four scoring tools in younger and older adult patients.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive capacity of four scoring tools: the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS), the Encephalitis-NCSE-Diazepam resistance-Image abnormalities-Tracheal intubation (END-IT) score, and two variable combinations of the Epidemiology-based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) in younger and older adult patients with status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

We present a retrospective hospital-based analysis with a focus on adult patients with SE at three tertiary care hospitals in the Zhejiang province of China. Data were collected from January 2013 to December 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: younger adult patients (18-64 years old) and older adult patients (≥65 years old). Clinical outcomes (dead or alive) were assessed at hospital discharge. The four scoring tools were used to predict in-hospital mortality in both younger and older adult patients.

RESULTS

The mortality rate in older adult patients (25.4%) was higher than in younger adult patients (12.9%). Compared with the elderly, the younger adult patients had a higher proportion of encephalitis, while acute cerebrovascular disease and Charlson Complications Index (CCI) were lower. For the younger adult patients, END-IT had the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.843 (95% CI, 0.772-0.899), which was higher than the EMSE-EAL value of 0.687 (95% CI, 0.603-0.763, p < 0.05) and EMSE-EAC of 0.646 (95% CI, 0.561-0.725, p < 0.05). For the older adult patients, EMSE-EAL had the largest AUC of 0.843 (95% CI, 0.738-0.919), which was significantly higher than STESS with an AUC of 0.676 (95% CI, 0.554-0.782, p < 0.05). Moreover, the AUC of EMSE-EAL in the elderly was larger than in younger adult patients. The cutoffs in younger adult patients were STESS ≥ 4 (sensitivity 0.444, specificity 0.951), END-IT ≥ 3 (sensitivity 0.833, specificity 0.672), EMSE-EAL ≥ 31 (sensitivity 0.778, specificity 0.566), and EMSE-EAC ≥ 33 (sensitivity 0.833, specificity 0.492). However, the cutoffs in older adult patients were STESS ≥ 5 (sensitivity 0.500, specificity 0.925), END-IT ≥ 2 (sensitivity 0.944, specificity 0.547), EMSE-EAL ≥ 30 (sensitivity 0.944, specificity 0.623), and EMSE-EAC ≥ 31 (sensitivity 0.944, specificity 0.415).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that the STESS, END-IT, EMSE-EAC, and EMSE-EAL scores have excellent capacity to predict in-hospital mortality in both younger and older adult patients with SE. Our study supports the use of END-IT in patients under 65 years of age and suggests that EMSE-EAL is the most suitable scoring tool for patients over 65.