- Pediatrics
-
Eleven years of experience in operating a pediatric rapid response system at a children’s hospital in South Korea
-
Yong Hyuk Jeon, Bongjin Lee, You Sun Kim, Won Jin Jang, June Dong Park
-
Acute Crit Care. 2023;38(4):498-506. Published online November 29, 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.01354
-
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Background
Various rapid response systems have been developed to detect clinical deterioration in patients. Few studies have evaluated single-parameter systems in children compared to scoring systems. Therefore, in this study we evaluated a single-parameter system called the acute response system (ARS).
Methods
This retrospective study was performed at a tertiary children’s hospital. Patients under 18 years old admitted from January 2012 to August 2023 were enrolled. ARS parameters such as systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and whether the ARS was activated were collected. We divided patients into two groups according to activation status and then compared the occurrence of critical events (cardiopulmonary resuscitation or unexpected intensive care unit admission). We evaluated the ability of ARS to predict critical events and calculated compliance. We also analyzed the correlation between each parameter that activates ARS and critical events.
Results
The critical events prediction performance of ARS has a specificity of 98.5%, a sensitivity of 24.0%, a negative predictive value of 99.6%, and a positive predictive value of 8.1%. The compliance rate was 15.6%. Statistically significant increases in the risk of critical events were observed for all abnormal criteria except low heart rate. There was no significant difference in the incidence of critical events.
Conclusions
ARS, a single parameter system, had good specificity and negative predictive value for predicting critical events; however, sensitivity and positive predictive value were not good, and medical staff compliance was poor.
- Pediatrics
-
Clinical implications of discrepancies in predicting pediatric mortality between Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2
-
Eui Jun Lee, Bongjin Lee, You Sun Kim, Yu Hyeon Choi, Young Ho Kwak, June Dong Park
-
Acute Crit Care. 2022;37(3):454-461. Published online July 29, 2022
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2021.01480
-
-
Abstract
PDF
- Background
Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 (PIM 3) and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) are validated tools for predicting mortality in children. Research suggests that these tools may have different predictive performance depending on patient group characteristics. Therefore, we designed this study to identify the factors that make the mortality rates predicted by the tools different.
Methods
This retrospective study included patients (<18 years) who were admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit from July 2017 to May 2019. After defining the predicted mortality of PIM 3 minus the predicted mortality rate of PELOD-2 as “difference in mortality prediction,” the clinical characteristics significantly related to this were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis. Predictive performance was analyzed through the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
Results
In total, 945 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 3.0 [0.0–8.0] years; girls, 44.7%) were analyzed. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed AUROCs of 0.889 (χ2=10.187, P=0.313) and 0.731 (χ2=6.220, P=0.183) of PIM 3 and PELOD-2, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that oxygen saturation, partial pressure of CO2, base excess, platelet counts, and blood urea nitrogen levels were significant factors. Patient condition-related factors such as cardiac bypass surgery, seizures, cardiomyopathy or myocarditis, necrotizing enterocolitis, cardiac arrest, leukemia or lymphoma after the first induction, bone marrow transplantation, and liver failure were significantly related (P<0.001).
Conclusions
Both tools predicted observed mortality well; however, caution is needed in interpretation as they may show different prediction results in relation to specific clinical characteristics.
|
KSCCM
