Hypothermia Outcome Prediction after Extracorporeal Life Support for Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest Patients: Assessing the Performance of the HOPE Score in Case Reports from the Literature.
Fiche du document
12 novembre 2021
- doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211896
- issn: 1660-4601
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3390/ijerph182211896
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/34831650
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1660-4601
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_51BE546854495
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , CC BY 4.0 , https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Sujets proches
BiasCiter ce document
N. Grin et al., « Hypothermia Outcome Prediction after Extracorporeal Life Support for Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest Patients: Assessing the Performance of the HOPE Score in Case Reports from the Literature. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.3390/ijerph182211896
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Aims: The hypothermia outcome prediction after extracorporeal life support (ECLS) score, or HOPE score, provides an estimate of the survival probability in hypothermic cardiac arrest patients undergoing ECLS rewarming. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the HOPE score in case reports from the literature. Methods: Cases were identified through a systematic review of the literature. We included cases of hypothermic cardiac arrest patients rewarmed with ECLS and not included in the HOPE derivation and validation studies. We calculated the survival probability of each patient according to the HOPE score. Results: A total of 70 patients were included. Most of them (62/70 = 89%) survived. The discrimination using the HOPE score was good (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve = 0.78). The calibration was poor, with HOPE survival probabilities averaging 54%. Using a HOPE survival probability threshold of at least 10% as a decision criterion for rewarming a patient would have resulted in only five false positives and a single false negative, i.e., 64 (or 91%) correct decisions. Conclusions: In this highly selected sample, the HOPE score still had a good practical performance. The selection bias most likely explains the poor calibration found in the present study, with survivors being more often described in the literature than non-survivors. Our finding underscores the importance of working with a representative sample of patients when deriving and validating a score, as was the case in the HOPE studies that included only consecutive patients in order to minimize the risk of publication bias and lower the risk of overly optimistic outcomes.