Development and Validation of a Nomogram Based on the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) Parameters to Predict 30-day Mortality in Status Epilepticus.
Mortality
Nomogram
Prediction
Status epilepticus
Journal
Neurocritical care
ISSN: 1556-0961
Titre abrégé: Neurocrit Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101156086
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
28
03
2022
accepted:
04
06
2022
pubmed:
2
7
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
entrez:
1
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop a nomogram using the parameters of the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) and to evaluate its accuracy compared with the EMSE alone in the prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with status epilepticus (SE). We included a cohort of patients with SE aged ≥ 21 years admitted from 2013 to 2021. Regression coefficients from the multivariable logistic regression model were used to generate a nomogram predicting the risk of 30-day mortality. Discrimination of the nomogram was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) with 95% confidence interval. Internal validation was performed by bootstrap resampling. Among 698 patients with SE, the 30-day mortality rate was 28.9% (202 of 698). On the multivariable analysis, all EMSE parameters (except for the comorbidity group including metastatic solid tumor or AIDS) were associated with a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality and were included in the nomogram. The discriminatory capability of the nomogram with bootstrap resampling (5000 resamples) had an AUCROC of 0.830 (95% confidence interval 0.798-0.862). Conversely, the AUCROC of the EMSE was 0.777 (95% confidence interval 0.742-0.813). Thus, the probability that a patient who died within 30 days from SE had a higher score than a patient who survived was 83%, indicating good discriminatory power of the nomogram. Conversely, the risk predicted using the EMSE alone was 77%. The nomogram was well calibrated. A nomogram based on EMSE parameters appears superior to the EMSE in predicting the risk of 30-day mortality after SE. The discrimination and calibration of the nomogram shows a better predictive accuracy than the EMSE alone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To develop a nomogram using the parameters of the Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) and to evaluate its accuracy compared with the EMSE alone in the prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with status epilepticus (SE).
METHODS
We included a cohort of patients with SE aged ≥ 21 years admitted from 2013 to 2021. Regression coefficients from the multivariable logistic regression model were used to generate a nomogram predicting the risk of 30-day mortality. Discrimination of the nomogram was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) with 95% confidence interval. Internal validation was performed by bootstrap resampling.
RESULTS
Among 698 patients with SE, the 30-day mortality rate was 28.9% (202 of 698). On the multivariable analysis, all EMSE parameters (except for the comorbidity group including metastatic solid tumor or AIDS) were associated with a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality and were included in the nomogram. The discriminatory capability of the nomogram with bootstrap resampling (5000 resamples) had an AUCROC of 0.830 (95% confidence interval 0.798-0.862). Conversely, the AUCROC of the EMSE was 0.777 (95% confidence interval 0.742-0.813). Thus, the probability that a patient who died within 30 days from SE had a higher score than a patient who survived was 83%, indicating good discriminatory power of the nomogram. Conversely, the risk predicted using the EMSE alone was 77%. The nomogram was well calibrated.
CONCLUSIONS
A nomogram based on EMSE parameters appears superior to the EMSE in predicting the risk of 30-day mortality after SE. The discrimination and calibration of the nomogram shows a better predictive accuracy than the EMSE alone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35778648
doi: 10.1007/s12028-022-01548-6
pii: 10.1007/s12028-022-01548-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
754-760Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.
Références
Neligan A, Shorvon SD. Frequency and prognosis of convulsive status epilepticus of different causes: a systematic review. Arch Neurol. 2010;67(8):931–40.
doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.169
pubmed: 20697043
Sutter R, Marsch S, Fuhr P, Kaplan PW, Rüegg S. Anesthetic drugs in status epilepticus: risk or rescue? A 6-year cohort study. Neurology. 2014;82:656–64.
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000009
pubmed: 24319039
pmcid: 3945664
Leitinger M, Höller Y, Kalss G, et al. Epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus (EMSE). Neurocrit Care. 2015;22:273–82.
doi: 10.1007/s12028-014-0080-y
pubmed: 25412806
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.
doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
pubmed: 3558716
Yuan F, Gao Q, Jiang W. Prognostic scores in status epilepticus-a critical appraisal. Epilepsia. 2018;59:170–5.
doi: 10.1111/epi.14483
pubmed: 30159870
Rossetti AO, Logroscino G, Bromfield EB. A clinical score for prognosis of status epilepticus in adults. Neurology. 2006;66:1736–8.
doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000223352.71621.97
pubmed: 16769951
Rossetti AO, Logroscino G, Milligan TA, Michaelides C, Ruffieux C, Bromfield EB. Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS): a tool to orient early treatment strategy. J Neurol. 2008;255(10):1561–6.
doi: 10.1007/s00415-008-0989-1
pubmed: 18769858
Lowenstein DH, Bleck T, Macdonald RL. It’s time to revise the definition of status epilepticus. Epilepsia. 1999;40:120–2.
doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1999.tb02000.x
pubmed: 9924914
Trinka E, Cock H, Hesdorffer D, et al. A definition and classification of status epilepticus–Report of the ILAE Task Force on Classification of Status Epilepticus. Epilepsia. 2015;56:1515–23.
doi: 10.1111/epi.13121
pubmed: 26336950
Leitinger M, Beniczky S, Rohracher A, et al. Salzburg consensus criteria for non-convulsive status epilepticus—approach to clinical application. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:158–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.05.007
pubmed: 26092326
Leitinger M, Trinka E, Gardella E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Salzburg EEG criteria for non-convulsive status epilepticus: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:1054–62.
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30137-5
pubmed: 27571157
Giovannini G, Monti G, Polisi MM, et al. A one-year prospective study of refractory status epilepticus in Modena, Italy. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:141–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.05.022
pubmed: 26074182
Orlandi N, Giovannini G, Rossi J, et al. Clinical outcomes and treatments effectiveness in status epilepticus resolved by antiepileptic drugs: a five-year observational study. Epilepsia Open. 2020;5:166–75.
doi: 10.1002/epi4.12383
pubmed: 32524042
pmcid: 7278543
Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17:3–23.
doi: 10.1007/s12028-012-9695-z
pubmed: 22528274
Glauser T, Shinnar S, Gloss D, et al. Evidence-based guideline: treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children and adults: report of the guideline committee of the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsy Curr. 2016;16:48–61.
doi: 10.5698/1535-7597-16.1.48
pubmed: 26900382
pmcid: 4749120
Minicucci F, Ferlisi M, Brigo F, et al. Management of status epilepticus in adults. Position paper of the Italian League against Epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;102:106675.
Rossetti AO, Alvarez V, Januel JM, Burnand B. Treatment deviating from guidelines does not influence status epilepticus prognosis. J Neurol. 2013;260:421–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6644-x
pubmed: 22899399
Yechoor N, Adeli A, Hafeez S. External validation of the epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus in an American intensive care population. Epilepsy Res. 2018;148:32–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.10.001
pubmed: 30342324
Leitinger M, Kalss G, Rohracher A, et al. Predicting outcome of status epilepticus. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:126–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.04.066
pubmed: 26071999
Giovannini G, Monti G, Tondelli M, et al. Mortality, morbidity and refractoriness prediction in status epilepticus: comparison of STESS and EMSE scores. Seizure. 2017;46:31–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.01.004
pubmed: 28226274
Rossetti AO, Hurwitz S, Logroscino G, Bromfield EB. Prognosis of status epilepticus: role of etiology, age, and consciousness impairment at presentation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:611–5.
doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.080887
pubmed: 16614020
pmcid: 2117456
Rohracher A, Reiter DP, Brigo F, et al. Status epilepticus in the elderly-A retrospective study on 120 patients. Epilepsy Res. 2016;127:317–23.
doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.08.016
pubmed: 27694014
Betjemann JP, Lowenstein DH. Status epilepticus in adults. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:615–24.
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00042-3
pubmed: 25908090
Leitinger M, Trinka E, Giovannini G, et al. Epidemiology of status epilepticus in adults: a population-based study on incidence, causes, and outcomes. Epilepsia. 2019;60:53–62.
doi: 10.1111/epi.14607
pubmed: 30478910
Lattanzi S, Giovannini G, Brigo F, Orlandi N, Trinka E, Meletti S. Status epilepticus with prominent motor symptoms clusters into distinct electroclinical phenotypes. Eur J Neurol. 2021;28:2694–9.
doi: 10.1111/ene.14891
pubmed: 33932068
pmcid: 8359986
Lattanzi S, Giovannini G, Brigo F, Orlandi N, Trinka E, Meletti S. Clinical phenotypes within nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsia. 2021;62:e129–34.
doi: 10.1111/epi.16999
pubmed: 34244997
pmcid: 8456934