IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of delirium prediction model for critically ill adults parameterized to ICU admission acuity

Author

Listed:
  • Stephana J Cherak
  • Andrea Soo
  • Kyla N Brown
  • E Wesley Ely
  • Henry T Stelfox
  • Kirsten M Fiest

Abstract

Background: Risk prediction models allow clinicians to forecast which individuals are at a higher risk for developing a particular outcome. We developed and internally validated a delirium prediction model for incident delirium parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity. Methods: This retrospective, observational, fourteen medical-surgical ICU cohort study evaluated consecutive delirium-free adults surviving hospital stay with ICU length of stay (LOS) greater than or equal to 24 hours with both an admission APACHE II score and an admission type (e.g., elective post-surgery, emergency post-surgery, non-surgical) in whom delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Risk factors included in the model were readily available in electric medical records. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic (LASSO) regression was used for model development. Discrimination was determined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Internal validation was performed by cross-validation. Predictive performance was determined using measures of accuracy and clinical utility was assessed by decision-curve analysis. Results: A total of 8,878 patients were included. Delirium incidence was 49.9% (n = 4,431). The delirium prediction model was parameterized to seven patient cohorts, admission type (3 cohorts) or mean quartile APACHE II score (4 cohorts). All parameterized cohort models were well calibrated. The AUC ranged from 0.67 to 0.78 (95% confidence intervals [CI] ranged from 0.63 to 0.79). Model accuracy varied across admission types; sensitivity ranged from 53.2% to 63.9% while specificity ranged from 69.0% to 74.6%. Across mean quartile APACHE II scores, sensitivity ranged from 58.2% to 59.7% while specificity ranged from 70.1% to 73.6%. The clinical utility of the parameterized cohort prediction model to predict and prevent incident delirium was greater than preventing incident delirium by treating all or none of the patients. Conclusions: Our results support external validation of a prediction model parameterized to patient ICU admission acuity to predict a patients’ risk for ICU delirium. Classification of patients’ risk for ICU delirium by admission acuity may allow for efficient initiation of prevention measures based on individual risk profiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephana J Cherak & Andrea Soo & Kyla N Brown & E Wesley Ely & Henry T Stelfox & Kirsten M Fiest, 2020. "Development and validation of delirium prediction model for critically ill adults parameterized to ICU admission acuity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237639
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237639
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237639&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ewout W Steyerberg & Karel G M Moons & Danielle A van der Windt & Jill A Hayden & Pablo Perel & Sara Schroter & Richard D Riley & Harry Hemingway & Douglas G Altman & for the PROGRESS Group, 2013. "Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Teus H. Kappen & Yvonne Vergouwe & Wilton A. van Klei & Leo van Wolfswinkel & Cor J. Kalkman & Karel G. M. Moons, 2012. "Adaptation of Clinical Prediction Models for Application in Local Settings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 1-10, May.
    3. Richard D Riley & Jill A Hayden & Ewout W Steyerberg & Karel G M Moons & Keith Abrams & Panayiotis A Kyzas & Núria Malats & Andrew Briggs & Sara Schroter & Douglas G Altman & Harry Hemingway & for the, 2013. "Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nath Adulkasem & Phichayut Phinyo & Jiraporn Khorana & Dumnoensun Pruksakorn & Theerachai Apivatthakakul, 2021. "Development of Clinical Prediction Rules for One-Year Postoperative Functional Outcome in Patients with Intertrochanteric Fractures: The Intertrochanteric Fracture Ambulatory Prediction (IT-AP) Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Julius Sim & Lucy Teece & Martin S Dennis & Christine Roffe & SOࠢS Study Team, 2016. "Validation and Recalibration of Two Multivariable Prognostic Models for Survival and Independence in Acute Stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Mario Dioguardi & Francesca Spirito & Diego Sovereto & Mario Alovisi & Giuseppe Troiano & Riccardo Aiuto & Daniele Garcovich & Vito Crincoli & Luigi Laino & Angela Pia Cazzolla & Giorgia Apollonia Cal, 2022. "MicroRNA-21 Expression as a Prognostic Biomarker in Oral Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    4. Catherine Beauregard-Paultre & Claire Nour Abou Chakra & Allison McGeer & Annie-Claude Labbé & Andrew E Simor & Wayne Gold & Matthew P Muller & Jeff Powis & Kevin Katz & Suzanne M Cadarette & Jacques , 2019. "External validation of clinical prediction rules for complications and mortality following Clostridioides difficile infection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Jiakun Jiang & Wei Yang & Erin M. Schnellinger & Stephen E. Kimmel & Wensheng Guo, 2023. "Dynamic logistic state space prediction model for clinical decision making," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 73-85, March.
    6. François Luthi & Olivier Deriaz & Philippe Vuistiner & Cyrille Burrus & Roger Hilfiker, 2014. "Predicting Non Return to Work after Orthopaedic Trauma: The Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK (WORRK) Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, April.
    7. Daan Nieboer & Tjeerd van der Ploeg & Ewout W Steyerberg, 2016. "Assessing Discriminative Performance at External Validation of Clinical Prediction Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    8. Alwin Schierenberg & Margaretha C Minnaard & Rogier M Hopstaken & Alma C van de Pol & Berna D L Broekhuizen & Niek J de Wit & Johannes B Reitsma & Saskia F van Vugt & Aleida W Graffelman & Hasse Melby, 2016. "External Validation of Prediction Models for Pneumonia in Primary Care Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Shamil D. Cooray & Lihini A. Wijeyaratne & Georgia Soldatos & John Allotey & Jacqueline A. Boyle & Helena J. Teede, 2020. "The Unrealised Potential for Predicting Pregnancy Complications in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Phung Khanh Lam & Dong Thi Hoai Tam & Nguyen Minh Dung & Nguyen Thi Hanh Tien & Nguyen Tan Thanh Kieu & Cameron Simmons & Jeremy Farrar & Bridget Wills & Marcel Wolbers, 2015. "A Prognostic Model for Development of Profound Shock among Children Presenting with Dengue Shock Syndrome," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Andrew D A C Smith & Kate Tilling & Debbie A Lawlor & Scott M Nelson, 2015. "External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Igor O Korolev & Laura L Symonds & Andrea C Bozoki & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, 2016. "Predicting Progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer's Dementia Using Clinical, MRI, and Plasma Biomarkers via Probabilistic Pattern Classification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, February.
    13. Jia You & Yu Guo & Yi Zhang & Ju-Jiao Kang & Lin-Bo Wang & Jian-Feng Feng & Wei Cheng & Jin-Tai Yu, 2023. "Plasma proteomic profiles predict individual future health risk," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Jakob Steinfeldt & Benjamin Wild & Thore Buergel & Maik Pietzner & Julius Upmeier zu Belzen & Andre Vauvelle & Stefan Hegselmann & Spiros Denaxas & Harry Hemingway & Claudia Langenberg & Ulf Landmesse, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Medical history predicts phenome-wide disease onset and enables the rapid response to emerging health threats," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Todd J. Levy & Kevin Coppa & Jinxuan Cang & Douglas P. Barnaby & Marc D. Paradis & Stuart L. Cohen & Alex Makhnevich & David Klaveren & David M. Kent & Karina W. Davidson & Jamie S. Hirsch & Theodoros, 2022. "Development and validation of self-monitoring auto-updating prognostic models of survival for hospitalized COVID-19 patients," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Zhixuan Fu & Chirag R. Parikh & Bingqing Zhou, 2017. "Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 353-376, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.