TY - JOUR
T1 - Are the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 and 3 equal predictors of mortality?
T2 - An intensive care unit-based concordance study
AU - Patino-Hernandez, Daniela
AU - López, Alba Deyanira Quiñonez
AU - Zuluaga, César Augusto
AU - García, Ángel Alberto
AU - Muñoz-Velandia, Oscar Mauricio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Associacao de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - Objective: To determine the concordance of mortality risk classification through the use of the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 and 3. Methods: Through a retrospective cohort, we evaluated patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit between April 2016 and December 2018. We calculated the mortality risk with the PIM 2 and 3. Analyses were carried out to determine the concordance between the risk classification obtained with both scales using unweighted and linearly weighted kappa. Results: A total of 722 subjects were included, and 66.6% had a chronic condition. The overall mortality was 3.7%. The global kappa concordance coefficient for classifying patients according to risk with the PIM 2 and 3 was moderate at 0.48 (95%CI 0.43 - 0.53). After linear weighting, concordance was substantial at 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 - 0.69). For cardiac surgery patients, concordance for risk classification was fair at 0.30 (95%CI 0.21 - 0.39), and after linear weighting, concordance was only moderate at 0.49 (95%CI 0.39 - 0.59). The PIM 3 assigned a lower risk than the PIM 2 in 44.8% of patients in this subgroup. Conclusion: Our study proves that the PIM 2 and 3 are not clinically equivalent and should not be used interchangeably for quality evaluation across pediatric intensive care units. Validation studies must be performed before using the PIM 2 or PIM 3 in specific settings.
AB - Objective: To determine the concordance of mortality risk classification through the use of the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 and 3. Methods: Through a retrospective cohort, we evaluated patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit between April 2016 and December 2018. We calculated the mortality risk with the PIM 2 and 3. Analyses were carried out to determine the concordance between the risk classification obtained with both scales using unweighted and linearly weighted kappa. Results: A total of 722 subjects were included, and 66.6% had a chronic condition. The overall mortality was 3.7%. The global kappa concordance coefficient for classifying patients according to risk with the PIM 2 and 3 was moderate at 0.48 (95%CI 0.43 - 0.53). After linear weighting, concordance was substantial at 0.64 (95%CI 0.59 - 0.69). For cardiac surgery patients, concordance for risk classification was fair at 0.30 (95%CI 0.21 - 0.39), and after linear weighting, concordance was only moderate at 0.49 (95%CI 0.39 - 0.59). The PIM 3 assigned a lower risk than the PIM 2 in 44.8% of patients in this subgroup. Conclusion: Our study proves that the PIM 2 and 3 are not clinically equivalent and should not be used interchangeably for quality evaluation across pediatric intensive care units. Validation studies must be performed before using the PIM 2 or PIM 3 in specific settings.
KW - Cardiac surgery
KW - Infant, newborn
KW - Intensive care units, pediatric
KW - Mortality
KW - Pediatric Index of Mortality
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0103-507x.20200096
U2 - 10.5935/0103-507X.20200096
DO - 10.5935/0103-507X.20200096
M3 - Article
C2 - 33470360
AN - SCOPUS:85100228264
SN - 0103-507X
VL - 32
SP - 578
EP - 584
JO - Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
JF - Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
IS - 4
ER -