4.2 Article

In-hospital vs. 30-day mortality in the critically ill - a 2-year Swedish intensive care cohort analysis

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 59, 期 7, 页码 846-858

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12554

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundStandardised mortality ratio (SMR) is a common quality indicator in critical care and is the ratio between observed mortality and expected mortality. Typically, in-hospital mortality is used to derive SMR, but the use of a time-fixed, more objective, end-point has been advocated. This study aimed to determine the relationship between in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality on a comprehensive Swedish intensive care cohort. MethodsA retrospective study on patients >15years old, from the Swedish Intensive Care Register (SIR), where intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in 2009-2010 were matched with the corresponding hospital admissions in the Swedish Hospital Discharge Register. Recalibrated SAPS (Simplified Acute Physiology Score) 3 models were developed to predict and compare in-hospital and 30-day mortality. SMR based on in-hospital mortality and on 30-day mortality were compared between ICUs and between groups with different case-mixes, discharge destinations and length of hospital stays. ResultsSixty-five ICUs with 48861 patients, of which 35610 were SAPS 3 scored, were included. Thirty-day mortality (17%) was higher than in-hospital mortality (14%). The SMR based on 30-day mortality and that based on in-hospital mortality differed significantly in 7/53 ICUs, for patients with sepsis, for elective surgery-admissions and in groups categorised according to discharge destination and hospital length of stay. ConclusionChoice of mortality end-point influences SMR. The extent of the influence depends on hospital-, ICU- and patient cohort characteristics as well as inter-hospital transfer rates, as all these factors influence the difference between SMR based on 30-day mortality and SMR based on in-hospital mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据