IntroductionA key aim of triage is to identify those with high risk of cardiac arrest, as they require intensive monitoring, resuscitation facilities, and early intervention. We aim to validate a novel machine learning (ML) score incorporating heart rate variability (HRV) for triage of critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department by comparing the area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity with the modified early warning score (MEWS).MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of critically ill patients (Patient Acuity Category Scale 1 and 2) in an emergency department of a tertiary hospital. At presentation, HRV parameters generated from a 5-minute electrocardiogram recording are incorporated with age and vital signs to generate the ML score for each patient. The patients are then followed up for outcomes of cardiac arrest or death.ResultsFrom June 2006 to June 2008 we enrolled 925 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for ML scores in predicting cardiac arrest within 72 hours is 0.781, compared with 0.680 for MEWS (difference in AUROC: 0.101, 95% confidence interval: 0.006 to 0.197). As for in-hospital death, the area under the curve for ML score is 0.741, compared with 0.693 for MEWS (difference in AUROC: 0.048, 95% confidence interval: -0.023 to 0.119). A cutoff ML score ≥ 60 predicted cardiac arrest with a sensitivity of 84.1%, specificity of 72.3% and negative predictive value of 98.8%. A cutoff MEWS ≥ 3 predicted cardiac arrest with a sensitivity of 74.4%, specificity of 54.2% and negative predictive value of 97.8%.ConclusionWe found ML scores to be more accurate than the MEWS in predicting cardiac arrest within 72 hours. There is potential to develop bedside devices for risk stratification based on cardiac arrest prediction.

BackgroundThe key aim of triage in chest pain patients is to identify those with high risk of adverse cardiac events as they require intensive monitoring and early intervention. In this study, we aim to discover the most relevant variables for risk prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using clinical signs and heart rate variability.MethodsA total of 702 chest pain patients at the Emergency Department (ED) of a tertiary hospital in Singapore were included in this study. The recruited patients were at least 30 years of age and who presented to the ED with a primary complaint of non-traumatic chest pain. The primary outcome was a composite of MACE such as death and cardiac arrest within 72 h of arrival at the ED. For each patient, eight clinical signs such as blood pressure and temperature were measured, and a 5-min ECG was recorded to derive heart rate variability parameters. A random forest-based novel method was developed to select the most relevant variables. A geometric distance-based machine learning scoring system was then implemented to derive a risk score from 0 to 100.ResultsOut of 702 patients, 29 (4.1%) met the primary outcome. We selected the 3 most relevant variables for predicting MACE, which were systolic blood pressure, the mean RR interval and the mean instantaneous heart rate. The scoring system with these 3 variables produced an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.812, and a cutoff score of 43 gave a sensitivity of 82.8% and specificity of 63.4%, while the scoring system with all the 23 variables had an AUC of 0.736, and a cutoff score of 49 gave a sensitivity of 72.4% and specificity of 63.0%. Conventional thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score and the modified early warning score achieved AUC values of 0.637 and 0.622, respectively.ConclusionsIt is observed that a few predictors outperformed the whole set of variables in predicting MACE within 72 h. We conclude that more predictors do not necessarily guarantee better prediction results. Furthermore, machine learning-based variable selection seems promising in discovering a few relevant and significant measures as predictors.

Early identification of high-risk septic patients in the emergency department (ED) may guide appropriate management and disposition, thereby improving outcomes. We compared the performance of machine learning models against conventional risk stratification tools, namely the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and our previously described Singapore ED Sepsis (SEDS) model, in the prediction of 30-day in-hospital mortality (IHM) among suspected sepsis patients in the ED. Adult patients who presented to Singapore General Hospital (SGH) ED between September 2014 and April 2016, and who met ≥2 of the 4 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria were included. Patient demographics, vital signs and heart rate variability (HRV) measures obtained at triage were used as predictors. Baseline models were created using qSOFA, NEWS, MEWS, and SEDS scores. Candidate models were trained using k-nearest neighbors, random forest, adaptive boosting, gradient boosting and support vector machine. Models were evaluated on F1 score and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). A total of 214 patients were included, of whom 40 (18.7%) met the outcome. Gradient boosting was the best model with a F1 score of 0.50 and AUPRC of 0.35, and performed better than all the baseline comparators (SEDS, F1 0.40, AUPRC 0.22; qSOFA, F1 0.32, AUPRC 0.21; NEWS, F1 0.38, AUPRC 0.28; MEWS, F1 0.30, AUPRC 0.25). A machine learning model can be used to improve prediction of 30-day IHM among suspected sepsis patients in the ED compared to traditional risk stratification tools.

A quick, objective, non-invasive means of identifying high-risk septic patients in the emergency department (ED) can improve hospital outcomes through early, appropriate management. Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis has been correlated with mortality in critically ill patients. We aimed to develop a Singapore ED sepsis (SEDS) predictive model to assess the risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality in septic patients presenting to the ED. We used demographics, vital signs, and HRV parameters in model building and compared it with the modified early warning score (MEWS), national early warning score (NEWS), and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score.Adult patients clinically suspected to have sepsis in the ED and who met the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria were included. Routine triage electrocardiogram segments were used to obtain HRV variables. The primary endpoint was 30-day in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to derive the SEDS model. MEWS, NEWS, and qSOFA (initial and worst measurements) scores were computed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate their predictive performances.Of the 214 patients included in this study, 40 (18.7%) met the primary endpoint. The SEDS model comprises of 5 components (age, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, mean RR interval, and detrended fluctuation analysis α2) and performed with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72–0.86), compared with 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56–0.74), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.61–0.79), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62–0.79), 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46–0.66) by qSOFA (initial), qSOFA (worst), NEWS, and MEWS, respectively.HRV analysis is a useful component in mortality risk prediction for septic patients presenting to the ED.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to validate the use of the modified early warning score (MEWS) as a predictor of patient mortality and intensive care unit (ICU)/ high dependency (HD) admission in an Asian population. METHODS:The MEWS was applied to a retrospective cohort of 1 024 critically ill patients presenting to a large Asian tertiary emergency department (ED) between November 2006 and December 2007. Individual MEWS was calculated based on vital signs parameters on arrival at ED. Outcomes of mortality and ICU/HD admission were obtained from hospital records. The ability of the composite MEWS and its individual components to predict mortality within 30 days from ED visit was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were derived and compared with values from other cohorts. A MEWS of ≥4 was chosen as the cut-off value for poor prognosis based on previous studies. RESULTS:A total of 311 (30.4%) critically ill patients were presented with a MEWS ≥4. Their mean age was 61.4 years (SD 18.1) with a male to female ratio of 1.10. Of the 311 patients, 53 (17%) died within 30 days, 64 (20.6%) were admitted to ICU and 86 (27.7%) were admitted to HD. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.71 with a sensitivity of 53.0% and a specifi city of 72.1% in addition to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 17.0% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.4% (MEWS cut-off of ≥4) for predicting mortality. CONCLUSION:The composite MEWS did not perform well in predicting poor patient outcomes for critically ill patients presenting to an ED.

No abstract