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
. 2022 Jul;26(7):780-785.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24242.

Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study

Affiliations

Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study

Armand Delo Antone Tan et al. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Delayed transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) contributes to increased mortality. Clinical tools, developed to shorten this delay, are especially useful in hospitals where the ideal healthcare provider-to-patient ratio is not met. This study aimed to validate and compare the accuracy of the well-accepted modified early warning score (MEWS) and the newer cardiac arrest risk triage (CART) score in the Philippine setting.

Patients and methods: This case-control study involved 82 adult patients admitted to the Philippine Heart Center. Patients who had cardiopulmonary (CP) arrest at the wards and those transferred to the ICU were included. Vital signs and alert-verbal-pain-unresponsive (AVPU) scales were recorded from recruitment until 48 hours prior to CP arrest or ICU transfer. The MEWS and CART scores were computed at specific time points and compared using measures of validity.

Results: The highest accuracy was obtained by the CART score with a cut-off of ≥12 at 8 hours prior to CP arrest or ICU transfer, with a specificity of 80.43% and sensitivity of 66.67%. At this time point, the MEWS with a cut-off of ≥3 had a specificity of 78.26% but a lower sensitivity of 58.33%. The area under the curve (AUC) analysis revealed that these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: We recommend an MEWS threshold of 3 and a CART score threshold of 12 to help identify patients at risk for clinical deterioration. The CART score had comparable accuracy to the MEWS, but the latter's computation may be easier.

How to cite this article: Tan ADA, Permejo CC, Torres MCD. Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):780-785.

Keywords: Cardiac arrest; Critical care; Early warning score; Rapid response team.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Flowchart 1
Flowchart 1
Schematic diagram of methodology

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cardoso LTQ, Grion CMC, Matsuo T, Anami EHT, Kauss IAM, Seko L, et al. Impact of delayed admission to intensive care units on mortality of critically ill patients: a cohort study. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R28. doi: 10.1186/cc9975. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mardini L, Lipes J, Jayaraman D. Adverse outcomes associated with delayed intensive care consultation in medical and surgical inpatients. J Crit Care. 2012;27(6):688–693. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.04.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kang MA, Churpek MM, Zadravecz FJ, Adhikari R, Twu NM, Edelson DP. Real-time risk prediction on the wards: a feasibility study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(8):1468–1473. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001716. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Edelson DP. Risk stratification of hospitalized patients on the wards. Chest. 2013;143(6):1758–1765. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-1605. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Winslow C, Robicsek AA, Meltzer DO, Gibbons RD, et al. Multicenter development and validation of a risk stratification tool for ward patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(6):649–655. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201406-1022OC. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources