American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.

The Intensive Care Global Study on Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (IC-GLOSSARI): a Multicenter, Multinational, 14-Day Inception Cohort Study

PURPOSE: In this prospective, multicenter, 14-day inception cohort study, we investigated the epidemiology, patterns of infections, and outcome in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) as a result of severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs). METHODS: All patients admitted to one of 206 participating ICUs during two study weeks, one in November 2013 and the other in January 2014, were screened. SARI was defined as possible, probable, or microbiologically confirmed respiratory tract infection with recent onset dyspnea and/or fever. The primary outcome parameter was in-hospital mortality within 60 days of admission to the ICU. RESULTS: Among the 5550 patients admitted during the study periods, 663 (11.9 %) had SARI. On admission to the ICU, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were found in 29.6 and 26.2 % of SARI patients but rarely atypical bacteria (1.0 %); viruses were present in 7.7 % of patients. Organ failure occurred in 74.7 % of patients in the ICU, mostly respiratory (53.8 %), cardiovascular (44.5 %), and renal (44.6 %). ICU and in-hospital mortality rates in patients with SARI were 20.2 and 27.2 %, respectively. In multivariable analysis, older age, greater severity scores at ICU admission, and hematologic malignancy or liver disease were independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas influenza vaccination prior to ICU admission and adequate antibiotic administration on ICU admission were associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: Admission to the ICU for SARI is common and associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. We identified several risk factors for in-hospital death that may be useful for risk stratification in these patients.

Nursing Home-Acquired Pneumonia Presenting at the Emergency Department

Nursing home-acquired pneumonia (NHAP) is one of the most common infections arising amongst nursing home residents, and its incidence is expected to increase as population ages. The NHAP recommendation for empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, arising from the concept of healthcare-associated pneumonia, has been challenged by recent studies reporting low rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. This single center study analyzes the results of NHAP patients admitted through the Emergency Department (ED) at a tertiary center during the year 2010. There were 116 cases, male gender corresponded to 34.5 % of patients and median age was 84 years old (IQR 77-90). Comorbidities were present in 69.8 % of cases and 48.3 % of patients had used healthcare services during the previous 90 days. In-hospital mortality rate was 46.6 % and median length-of-stay was 9 days. Severity assessment at the Emergency Department provided CURB65 index score and respective mortality (%) results: zero: n = 0; one: n = 7 (0 %); two: n = 18 (38.9 %); three: n = 26 (38.5 %); four: n = 30 (53.3 %); and five; n = 22 (68.2 %); and sepsis n = 50 (34.0 %), severe sepsis n = 43 (48.8 %) and septic shock n = 22 (72.7 %). Significant risk factors for in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis were polypnea (p = 0.001), age ≥ 75 years (p = 0.02), and severe sepsis or shock (p = 0.03) at the ED. Microbiological testing in 78.4 % of cases was positive in 15.4 % (n = 15): methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (26.7 %), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (20.0 %), S. pneumoniae (13.3 %), Escherichia coli (13.3 %), others (26.7 %); the rate of MDR bacteria was 53.3 %. This study reveals high rates of mortality and MDR bacteria among NHAP hospital admissions supporting the use of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy in these patients.

External Validation of the ProACS Score for Risk Stratification of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION: The ProACS risk score is an early and simple risk stratification score developed for all-cause in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) from a Portuguese nationwide ACS registry. Our center only recently participated in the registry and was not included in the cohort used for developing the score. Our objective was to perform an external validation of this risk score for short- and long-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to our center with ACS were included. Demographic and admission characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome data were collected. The ProACS risk score variables are age (≥72 years), systolic blood pressure (≤116 mmHg), Killip class (2/3 or 4) and ST-segment elevation. We calculated ProACS, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome risk score (C-ACS) risk scores for each patient. RESULTS: A total of 3170 patients were included, with a mean age of 64±13 years, 62% with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and 10.3% at one-year follow-up. The ProACS risk score showed good discriminative ability for all considered outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.75) and a good fit, similar to C-ACS, but lower than the GRACE risk score and slightly lower than in the original development cohort. The ProACS risk score provided good differentiation between patients at low, intermediate and high mortality risk in both short- and long-term follow-up (p<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The ProACS score is valid in external cohorts for risk stratification for ACS. It can be applied very early, at the first medical contact, but should subsequently be complemented by the GRACE risk score.