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

4Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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 (rs = 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rezende, R. Q., Ricachinevsky, C. P., Botta, A., Angeli, V. R., & DaSilva Nogueira, A. J. (2017). Assessment of PIM-2 performance among surgical patients with heart disease and correlation of results with RACHS-1. Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, 29(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20170069

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