Characterizing the Risk Profiles of Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new method to evaluate the performance of individual ICUs through the calculation and visualisation of risk profiles. METHODS: The study included 102,561 patients consecutively admitted to 77 ICUs in Austria. We customized the function which predicts hospital mortality (using SAPS II) for each ICU. We then compared the risks of hospital mortality resulting from this function with the risks which would be obtained using the original function. The derived risk ratio was then plotted together with point-wise confidence intervals in order to visualise the individual risk profile of each ICU over the whole spectrum of expected hospital mortality. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We calculated risk profiles for all ICUs in the ASDI data set according to the proposed method. We show examples how the clinical performance of ICUs may depend on the severity of illness of their patients. Both the distribution of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistics and the histogram of the corresponding P values demonstrated a good fit of the individual risk models. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk profile model makes it possible to evaluate ICUs on the basis of the specific risk for patients to die compared to a reference sample over the whole spectrum of hospital mortality. Thus, ICUs at different levels of severity of illness can be directly compared, giving a clear advantage over the use of the conventional single point estimate of the overall observed-to-expected mortality ratio.

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.