Cargando…

Assessment of PIM-2 performance among surgical patients with heart disease and correlation of results with RACHS-1

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 and the Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS) in the postoperative period of congenital heart disease patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from patient records to ge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rezende, Raíssa Queiroz, Ricachinevsky, Cláudia Pires, Botta, Aline, Angeli, Viviane Rampon, Nogueira, Aldemir José da Silva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29340536
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20170069
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 and the Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS) in the postoperative period of congenital heart disease patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from patient records to generate the scores and predictions using recommended techniques, demographic data and outcomes. The Mann-Whitney test, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, standardized mortality rate, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, chi square test, Poisson regression with robust variance and Spearman's test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 263 patients were evaluated, and 72 died (27.4%). These patients presented significantly higher PIM-2 values than survivors (p < 0.001). In the RACHS-1 classification, mortality was progressively higher according to the complexity of the procedure, with a 3.24-fold increase in the comparison between groups 6 and 2. The area under the ROC curve for PIM-2 was 0.81 (95%CI 0.75 - 0.87), while for RACHS-1, it was 0.70 (95%CI 0.63 - 0.77). The RACHS presented better calibration power in the sample analyzed. A significantly positive correlation was found between the results of both scores (r(s) = 0.532; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RACHS presented good calibration power, and RACHS-1 and PIM-2 demonstrated good performance with regard to their discriminating capacities between survivors and non-survivors. Moreover, a positive correlation was found between the results of the two risk scores.