Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied

Risk factors for vascular catheter-related bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive care units: a multicenter study

O presente estudo estudou os fatores de risco para aquisição de infecções da corrente sanguínea relacionadas com cateter (ICSACs) em unidades de terapia intensiva (UTIs), a incidência e etiologia da ICSACs em UTIs com perfis diferentes. Foi realizado através deum estudo prospectivo de coorte nos seguintes hospitais: Hospital Santa Casa de Misericórdia de SP (duas UTIs pediátricas - serviço público), Municipal Hospital Alípio Correa Neto:com oito leitos (serviço público), e no Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein: 15 leitos (serviço privado). Participaram os pacientes internados nas UTIs com idade de 1 mês a 18 anos de idade que utilizaram cateter venoso central (CVC) por mais de 24 horas. Realizou-se registro do progresso diário dos pacientes e fatores como dados gerais do paciente e relacionada a cateter foram coletadas e usadas como variáveis. Todos os dados foram analisados utilizando SPSS13.0, para comparar pacientes com ICSAC com ou sem fatores de risco. Dos 170 pacientes com CVC, 18,2% tinham ICSACs. Uso de dispositivos (por exemplo, cateter urinário e tubo endotraqueal), produtos derivados do sangue, infecções prévia ao uso do CVC, o uso de antifúngicos, distúrbios de potássio, número de punções, sinais de infecção local, número de cateteres, e uso de cateter foram associados como fatores de risco a ICSACs. As taxas de ICSAC observadas foram superiores aos descritos na literature internacional, e Bacilos Gram-negativos foram os microorganismos mais prevalentesThis study studied the risk factors for acquiring catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in intensive care units (ICUs) and the incidence and etiology of CRBSIs in ICUs with different profiles. It was a Prospective cohort study a ccomplished in the following hospitals: Hospital Santa Casa de Misericordia in SP ( with two pediatric ICUs - public), Municipal Hospital Alipio Correa Neto ( eight beds public), and Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein ( 15 beds -private). Patients Participated with 1 month to 18 years old who used Central Venous Catheter (CVC) for over 24 hours. We recorded patients\' daily progress. Factors such as general data of patient and catheter-related were collected and used as variables. All the data were analyzed using SPSS13.0, to compare patients with CRBSI with or without risk factors. Of the 170 patients with CVCs, 18.2% had CRBSIs. Use of devices (e.g., indwelling urinary catheter and endotracheal tube), blood products, previous infections, use of antifungals, potassium disorders, number of punctures, signs of local infection, number of catheters, and longer catheter usage were associated risk factors with CRBIs. The CRBSI rates observed were higher than those describe in the international literature, and the Gram-negative were the most prevalent microorganism

Datasheet1_Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.pdf

ObjectiveTo validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2.MethodsObservational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve – AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019.Results41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2–5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94–1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%–3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%–46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%–100% mortality risk).ConclusionsBoth scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied.</p