4.5 Article

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

Journal

ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-018-0459-6

Keywords

Septic shock; Vasopressors; Inotropes; Norepinephrine; MAVIC model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundVasoactive 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.MethodsQuantitative 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, log(10)NEE 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 resultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available