Validation of the prognostic scoring system for in-hospital mortality prediction in cardiogenic shock patients requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

被引:0
作者
Cheewatanakornkul, Sirichai [1 ]
Duangpakdee, Pongsanae [2 ]
Khwannimit, Bodin [3 ]
Bhurayanontachai, Rungsun [3 ]
Geater, Sarayut Lucien [4 ]
Geater, Alan Frederick [5 ]
机构
[1] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Cardiol, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
[2] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Med, Dept Surg, Div Cardiothorac Surg, Hat Yai 90110, Songkhla, Thailand
[3] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Crit Care, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
[4] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Resp & Resp Crit Care Med, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
[5] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Med, Epidemiol Unit, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
关键词
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; risk scores; mortality; cardiogenic shock; VA-ECMO; SURVIVAL; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1177/02184923231167302
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: A few prognostic scoring systems have been developed for predicting mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), albeit with variations in performance. This study aimed to assess and compare various mortality prediction models in a cohort of patients receiving VA-ECMO following cardiogenic shock or arrest.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 77 patients with cardiogenic shock who were placed on VA-ECMO support between March 2014 and August 2021. The APACHE II, SAPS II, SAVE, Modified SAVE, ENCOURAGE, and ECMO-ACCEPTS scores were calculated for each patient to predict the in-hospital mortality.Results: Fifty-six (72.7%) patients died. All prediction model scores, except the ECMO-ACCEPTS, differed significantly between non-survivors and survivors as follows: ENCOURAGE, 23 versus 16 (p < 0.001); SAVE, -6 versus -3 (p = 0.008); Modified SAVE, -5 versus 0 (p = 0.005); APACHE II, 32 versus 22 (p = 0.009); and SAPS II, 67 versus 49 (p = 0.002). The ENCOURAGE score demonstrated the best discriminatory ability with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.7-0.81). All prognostic scoring systems possessed limited calibration ability. However, the SAPS II, SAVE, and ENCOURAGE scores had lower Akaike and Bayesian information criteria values, which were consistent with the results of the Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic test, indicating better performance than the other scores.Conclusions: The ENCOURAGE score can help predict in-hospital mortality in all subsets of VA-ECMO patients, even though it was originally designed to predict intensive care unit mortality in the post-acute myocardial infarction setting.
引用
收藏
页码:321 / 331
页数:11
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiopulmonary Disease in Adults
    Abrams, Darryl
    Combes, Alain
    Brodie, Daniel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2014, 63 (25) : 2769 - 2778
  • [2] Predicting Survival After VA-ECMO for Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: Validating the SAVE Score
    Amin, Faizan
    Lombardi, Julia
    Alhussein, Mosaad
    Posada, Juan Duero
    Suszko, Adrian
    Koo, Margaret
    Fan, Eddy
    Ross, Heather
    Rao, Vivek
    Alba, Ana Carolina
    Billia, Filio
    [J]. CJC OPEN, 2021, 3 (01) : 71 - 81
  • [3] [Anonymous], INT REPORT APRIL PAG
  • [4] Risk prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiopulmonary support: The ECMO-ACCEPTS score
    Becher, Peter M.
    Twerenbold, Raphael
    Schrage, Benedikt
    Schmack, Bastian
    Sinning, Christoph R.
    Fluschnik, Nina
    Schwarzl, Michael
    Waldeyer, Christoph
    Seiffert, Moritz
    Clemmensen, Peter
    Neumann, Johannes T.
    Bernhardt, Alexander M.
    Zeymer, Uwe
    Thiele, Holger
    Reichenspurner, Hermann
    Blankenberg, Stefan
    Westermann, Dirk
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2020, 56 : 100 - 105
  • [5] The modified SAVE score: predicting survival using urgent veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency department
    Chen, Wei-Cheng
    Huang, Kuo-Yang
    Yao, Chih-Wei
    Wu, Cing-Feng
    Liang, Shinn-Jye
    Li, Chia-Hsiang
    Tu, Chih-Yeh
    Chen, Hung-Jen
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE, 2016, 20
  • [6] Chien SC, 2020, ACTA CARDIOL SIN, V36, P326, DOI [10.6515/AC5.202007_36(4).20191015A, 10.6515/ACS.202007_36(4).20191015A]
  • [7] Ensor J., 2020, Stat Softw Components
  • [8] A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis
    Fischer, JE
    Bachmann, LM
    Jaeschke, R
    [J]. INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2003, 29 (07) : 1043 - 1051
  • [9] Validation of Prognostic Scores in Extracorporeal Life Support: A Multi-Centric Retrospective Study
    Fisser, Christoph
    Rincon-Gutierrez, Luis Alberto
    Enger, Tone Bull
    Taccone, Fabio Silvio
    Broman, Lars Mikael
    Belliato, Mirko
    Nobile, Leda
    Pappalardo, Federico
    Malfertheiner, Maximilian V.
    [J]. MEMBRANES, 2021, 11 (02) : 1 - 12
  • [10] Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock
    Keebler, Mary E.
    Haddad, Elias V.
    Choi, Chun W.
    McGrane, Stuart
    Zalawadiya, Sandip
    Schlendorf, Kelly H.
    Brinkley, D. Marshall
    Danter, Matthew R.
    Wigger, Mark
    Menachem, Jonathan N.
    Shah, Ashish
    Lindenfeld, Joann
    [J]. JACC-HEART FAILURE, 2018, 6 (06) : 503 - 516