Development and performance of a novel vasopressor-driven mortality prediction model in septic shock

46Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Vasoactive medications are essential in septic shock, but are not fully incorporated into current mortality prediction risk scores. We sought to develop a novel mortality prediction model for septic shock incorporating quantitative vasoactive medication usage. Methods: Quantitative vasopressor use was calculated in a cohort of 5352 septic shock patients and compared using norepinephrine equivalents (NEE), cumulative vasopressor index and the vasoactive inotrope score models. Having best discrimination prediction, log10NEE was selected for further development of a novel prediction model for 28-day and 1-year mortality via backward stepwise logistic regression. This model termed ‘MAVIC’ (Mechanical ventilation, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation-III, Vasopressors, Inotropes, Charlson comorbidity index) was then compared to Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation-III (APACHE-III) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores in an independent validation cohort for its accuracy in predicting 28-day and 1-year mortality. Measurements and main results: The MAVIC model was superior to the APACHE-III and SOFA scores in its ability to predict 28-day mortality (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.73 vs. 0.66 and 0.60) and 1-year mortality (AUROC 0.74 vs. 0.66 and 0.60), respectively. Conclusions: The incorporation of quantitative vasopressor usage into a novel ‘MAVIC’ model results in superior 28-day and 1-year mortality risk prediction in a large cohort of patients with septic shock.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vallabhajosyula, S., Jentzer, J. C., Kotecha, A. A., Murphree, D. H., Barreto, E. F., Khanna, A. K., & Iyer, V. N. (2018). Development and performance of a novel vasopressor-driven mortality prediction model in septic shock. Annals of Intensive Care, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0459-6

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