Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan 21:7:609769.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.609769. eCollection 2020.

Development and Validation of a Sepsis Mortality Risk Score for Sepsis-3 Patients in Intensive Care Unit

Kai Zhang  1 , Shufang Zhang  2 , Wei Cui  1 , Yucai Hong  3 , Gensheng Zhang  1 , Zhongheng Zhang  3
Affiliations

Development and Validation of a Sepsis Mortality Risk Score for Sepsis-3 Patients in Intensive Care Unit

Kai Zhang et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: Many severity scores are widely used for clinical outcome prediction for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, for patients identified by sepsis-3 criteria, none of these have been developed. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk stratification score for mortality prediction in sepsis-3 patients. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we employed the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) database for model development and the eICU database for external validation. We identified septic patients by sepsis-3 criteria on day 1 of ICU entry. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) technique was performed to select predictive variables. We also developed a sepsis mortality prediction model and associated risk stratification score. We then compared model discrimination and calibration with other traditional severity scores. Results: For model development, we enrolled a total of 5,443 patients fulfilling the sepsis-3 criteria. The 30-day mortality was 16.7%. With 5,658 septic patients in the validation set, there were 1,135 deaths (mortality 20.1%). The score had good discrimination in development and validation sets (area under curve: 0.789 and 0.765). In the validation set, the calibration slope was 0.862, and the Brier value was 0.140. In the development dataset, the score divided patients according to mortality risk of low (3.2%), moderate (12.4%), high (30.7%), and very high (68.1%). The corresponding mortality in the validation dataset was 2.8, 10.5, 21.1, and 51.2%. As shown by the decision curve analysis, the score always had a positive net benefit. Conclusion: We observed moderate discrimination and calibration for the score termed Sepsis Mortality Risk Score (SMRS), allowing stratification of patients according to mortality risk. However, we still require further modification and external validation.

Keywords: critical care; intensive care unit (ICU); machine learning; mortality prediction model; sepsis-3.0; severity score system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The relationship between SMRS and probability of death in development set.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The ROC curves of SMRS and other severity scores. (A) Development set; (B) Validation set.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Calibration of SMRS. (A) Development set; (B) Validation set.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Decision curve analysis of SMRS, SAPS II, SOFA, and APACHE IV. (A) Development set; (B) Validation set.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mortality risk groups according to SMRS.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The ROC curves of logistic regression model, MARS model, random forest model, XGBoost model. (A) Logistic regression model; (B) MARS model; (C) random forest model; (D) XGBoost model.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. (2016) 315:801–10. 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis current estimates and limitations. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. (2016) 193:259–72. 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. . Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. (2020) 395:200–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vincent JL, Marshall JC, Namendys-Silva SA, Francois B, Martin-Loeches I, Lipman J, et al. . Assessment of the worldwide burden of critical illness: the intensive care over nations (ICON) audit. Lancet Resp Med. (2014) 2:380–6. 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70061-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, Friedrich ME, Iwashyna TJ, Phillips GS, et al. . Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:2235–44. 10.1056/NEJMoa1703058 - DOI - PMC - PubMed