Predicting cardiovascular intensive care unit readmission after cardiac surgery: derivation and validation of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) cardiovascular intensive care unit clinical prediction model from a registry cohort of 10,799 surgical cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In medical and surgical intensive care units, clinical risk prediction models for readmission have been developed; however, studies reporting the risks for cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) readmission have been methodologically limited by small numbers of outcomes, unreported measures of calibration or discrimination, or a lack of information spanning the entire perioperative period. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a clinical prediction model for CVICU readmission in cardiac surgical patients. METHODS: A total of 10,799 patients more than or equal to 18 years in the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry who underwent cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass or valvular surgery) between 2004 and 2012 and were discharged alive from the first CVICU admission were included. The full cohort was used to derive the clinical prediction model and the model was internally validated with bootstrapping. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the AUC c index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow tests, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 479 (4.4%) patients required CVICU readmission. The mean CVICU length of stay (19.9 versus 3.3 days, P <0.001) and in-hospital mortality (14.4% versus 2.2%, P <0.001) were higher among patients readmitted to the CVICU. In the derivation cohort, a total of three preoperative (age ≥ 70, ejection fraction, chronic lung disease), two intraoperative (single valve repair or replacement plus non-CABG surgery, multivalve repair or replacement), and seven postoperative variables (cardiac arrest, pneumonia, pleural effusion, deep sternal wound infection, leg graft harvest site infection, gastrointestinal bleed, neurologic complications) were independently associated with CVICU readmission. The clinical prediction model had robust discrimination and calibration in the derivation cohort (AUC c index = 0.799; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.192). The validation point estimates and confidence intervals were similar to derivation model. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population-based dataset incorporating a comprehensive set of perioperative variables, we have derived a clinical prediction model with excellent discrimination and calibration. This model identifies opportunities for targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing CVICU readmissions in high-risk patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".