Prospective validation of the RAPID clinical risk prediction score in adult patients with pleural infection: the PILOT study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Over 30% of adult patients with pleural infection either die and/or require surgery. There is no robust means of predicting at baseline presentation which patients will suffer a poor clinical outcome. A validated risk prediction score would allow early identification of high-risk patients, potentially directing more aggressive treatment thereafter.

Objectives

To prospectively assess a previously described risk score (the RAPID (Renal (urea), Age, fluid Purulence, Infection source, Dietary (albumin)) score) in adults with pleural infection.

Methods

Prospective observational cohort study that recruited patients undergoing treatment for pleural infection. RAPID score and risk category were calculated at baseline presentation. The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes were mortality at 12 months, length of hospital stay, need for thoracic surgery, failure of medical treatment and lung function at 3 months.

Results

Mortality data were available in 542 out of 546 patients recruited (99.3%). Overall mortality was 10% at 3 months (54 out of 542) and 19% at 12 months (102 out of 542). The RAPID risk category predicted mortality at 3 months. Low-risk mortality (RAPID score 0–2): five out of 222 (2.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7%); medium-risk mortality (RAPID score 3–4): 21 out of 228 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.0 to 13.7%); and high-risk mortality (RAPID score 5–7): 27 out of 92 (29.3%, 95% CI 21.0 to 39.2%). C-statistics for the scores at 3 months and 12 months were 0.78 (95% CI 0.71–0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72–0.82), respectively.

Conclusions

The RAPID score stratifies adults with pleural infection according to increasing risk of mortality and should inform future research directed at improving outcomes in this patient population.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.

Gary S. Collins, Johannes Reitsma, Douglas G. Altman … (2015)

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

0 comments Cited 720 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study.

W S Lim (2003)

In the assessment of severity in community acquired pneumonia (CAP), the modified British Thoracic Society (mBTS) rule identifies patients with severe pneumonia but not patients who might be suitable for home management. A multicentre study was conducted to derive and validate a practical severity assessment model for stratifying adults hospitalised with CAP into different management groups. Data from three prospective studies of CAP conducted in the UK, New Zealand, and the Netherlands were combined. A derivation cohort comprising 80% of the data was used to develop the model. Prognostic variables were identified using multiple logistic regression with 30 day mortality as the outcome measure. The final model was tested against the validation cohort. 1068 patients were studied (mean age 64 years, 51.5% male, 30 day mortality 9%). Age >/=65 years (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 8.0) and albumin 7 mmol/l, Respiratory rate >/=30/min, low systolic( /=65 years (CURB-65 score) based on information available at initial hospital assessment, enabled patients to be stratified according to increasing risk of mortality: score 0, 0.7%; score 1, 3.2%; score 2, 3%; score 3, 17%; score 4, 41.5% and score 5, 57%. The validation cohort confirmed a similar pattern. A simple six point score based on confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age can be used to stratify patients with CAP into different management groups.