Predicting Inpatient Mortality among Encephalitis Patients: A Novel Admission Risk Score

10Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. Identifying underlying commonalities among all-cause encephalitis cases can be extraordinarily useful in predicting meaningful risk factors associated with inpatient mortality. Methods. A retrospective cohort of patients with encephalitis was derived from a clinical chart review of adult patients (age ≥18 years) across 16 different hospitals in Houston, Texas, between January 2005 and July 2015. Clinical features at admission were assessed for their correlation with inpatient mortality and used to derive a final risk score prediction tool. Results. The study included a total of 273 adult patients with all-cause encephalitis, 27 (9.9%) of whom died during hospitalization. A limited number of clinical features were substantially different between patients who survived and those who died (Charlson score, Glasgow coma scale [GCS], immunosuppression, fever on admission, multiple serologic studies, and abnormal imaging). A final multivariable logistic model was derived with the following risk factors, which were transformed into a scoring system: 1 point was assigned to the presence of a Charlson score >2, thrombocytopenia, or cerebral edema, and 2 points for a GCS value <8. Patients were then classified into different risk groups for inpatient mortality: 0 points (0%), 1 point (7%), 2 points (10.9%), 3 points (36.8%), and ≥4 points (81.8%). Conclusions. The risk score developed from this study shows a high predictive value. This can be highly beneficial in alerting care providers to key clinical risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality in adults with encephalitis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hansen, M. A., Samannodi, M. S., & Hasbun, R. (2020). Predicting Inpatient Mortality among Encephalitis Patients: A Novel Admission Risk Score. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa471

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free