Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024
Catheterization for Congenital Heart Disease Adjustment for Risk Method II.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Quinn Brian P, Gunnelson Lauren C, Kotin Sarah G, Gauvreau Kimberlee, Yeh Mary J, Hasan Babar, Lozier John, Barry Oliver M, Shahanavaz Shabana, Batlivala Sarosh P, Salavitabar Arash, Foerster Susan, Goldstein Bryan, Divekar Abhay, Holzer Ralf, Nicholson George T, O'Byrne Michael L, Whiteside Wendy, Bergersen Lisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current metrics used to adjust for case mix complexity in congenital cardiac catheterization are becoming outdated due to the introduction of novel procedures, innovative technologies, and expanding patient subgroups. This study aims to develop a risk adjustment methodology introducing a novel, clinically meaningful adverse event outcome and incorporating a modern understanding of risk.
METHODS: Data from diagnostic only and interventional cases with defined case types were collected for patients ≤18 years of age and ≥2.5 kg at all Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes participating centers. The derivation data set consisted of cases performed from 2014 to 2017, and the validation data set consisted of cases performed from 2019 to 2020. Severity level 3 adverse events were stratified into 3 tiers by clinical impact (3a/b/c); the study outcome was clinically meaningful adverse events, severity level ≥3b (3bc/4/5).
RESULTS: The derivation data set contained 15 224 cases, and the validation data set included 9462 cases. Clinically meaningful adverse event rates were 4.5% and 4.2% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The final risk adjustment model included age <30 days, Procedural Risk in Congenital Cardiac Catheterization risk category, and hemodynamic vulnerability score (C statistic, 0.70; Hosmer-Lemeshow P value, 0.83; Brier score, 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: CHARM II (Congenital Heart Disease Adjustment for Risk Method II) risk adjustment methodology allows for equitable comparison of clinically meaningful adverse events among institutions and operators with varying patient populations and case mix complexity performing pediatric cardiac catheterization.
METHODS: Data from diagnostic only and interventional cases with defined case types were collected for patients ≤18 years of age and ≥2.5 kg at all Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes participating centers. The derivation data set consisted of cases performed from 2014 to 2017, and the validation data set consisted of cases performed from 2019 to 2020. Severity level 3 adverse events were stratified into 3 tiers by clinical impact (3a/b/c); the study outcome was clinically meaningful adverse events, severity level ≥3b (3bc/4/5).
RESULTS: The derivation data set contained 15 224 cases, and the validation data set included 9462 cases. Clinically meaningful adverse event rates were 4.5% and 4.2% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The final risk adjustment model included age <30 days, Procedural Risk in Congenital Cardiac Catheterization risk category, and hemodynamic vulnerability score (C statistic, 0.70; Hosmer-Lemeshow P value, 0.83; Brier score, 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: CHARM II (Congenital Heart Disease Adjustment for Risk Method II) risk adjustment methodology allows for equitable comparison of clinically meaningful adverse events among institutions and operators with varying patient populations and case mix complexity performing pediatric cardiac catheterization.