Predicting Survival for Veno-Arterial ECMO Using Conditional Inference Trees-A Multicenter Study.

ECLS VA ECMO conditional inference trees machine learning predictors unbiased recursive partitioning

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 17 08 2023
revised: 14 09 2023
accepted: 25 09 2023
medline: 14 10 2023
pubmed: 14 10 2023
entrez: 14 10 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite increasing use and understanding of the process, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy is still associated with considerable mortality. Personalized and quick survival predictions using machine learning methods can assist in clinical decision making before ECMO insertion. This is a multicenter study to develop and validate an easy-to-use prognostic model to predict in-hospital mortality of VA-ECMO therapy, using unbiased recursive partitioning with conditional inference trees. We compared two sets with different numbers of variables (small and comprehensive), all of which were available just before ECMO initiation. The area under the curve (AUC), the cross-validated Brier score, and the error rate were applied to assess model performance. Data were collected retrospectively between 2007 and 2019. 837 patients were eligible for this study; 679 patients in the derivation cohort (median (IQR) age 60 (49 to 69) years; 187 (28%) female patients) and a total of 158 patients in two external validation cohorts (median (IQR) age 57 (49 to 65) and 70 (63 to 76) years). For the small data set, the model showed a cross-validated error rate of 35.79% and an AUC of 0.70 (95% confidence interval from 0.66 to 0.74). In the comprehensive data set, the error rate was the same with a value of 35.35%, with an AUC of 0.71 (95% confidence interval from 0.67 to 0.75). The mean Brier scores of the two models were 0.210 (small data set) and 0.211 (comprehensive data set). External validation showed an error rate of 43% and AUC of 0.60 (95% confidence interval from 0.52 to 0.69) using the small tree and an error rate of 35% with an AUC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval from 0.54 to 0.72) using the comprehensive tree. There were large differences between the two validation sets. Conditional inference trees are able to augment prognostic clinical decision making for patients undergoing ECMO treatment. They may provide a degree of accuracy in mortality prediction and prognostic stratification using readily available variables.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite increasing use and understanding of the process, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy is still associated with considerable mortality. Personalized and quick survival predictions using machine learning methods can assist in clinical decision making before ECMO insertion.
METHODS METHODS
This is a multicenter study to develop and validate an easy-to-use prognostic model to predict in-hospital mortality of VA-ECMO therapy, using unbiased recursive partitioning with conditional inference trees. We compared two sets with different numbers of variables (small and comprehensive), all of which were available just before ECMO initiation. The area under the curve (AUC), the cross-validated Brier score, and the error rate were applied to assess model performance. Data were collected retrospectively between 2007 and 2019.
RESULTS RESULTS
837 patients were eligible for this study; 679 patients in the derivation cohort (median (IQR) age 60 (49 to 69) years; 187 (28%) female patients) and a total of 158 patients in two external validation cohorts (median (IQR) age 57 (49 to 65) and 70 (63 to 76) years). For the small data set, the model showed a cross-validated error rate of 35.79% and an AUC of 0.70 (95% confidence interval from 0.66 to 0.74). In the comprehensive data set, the error rate was the same with a value of 35.35%, with an AUC of 0.71 (95% confidence interval from 0.67 to 0.75). The mean Brier scores of the two models were 0.210 (small data set) and 0.211 (comprehensive data set). External validation showed an error rate of 43% and AUC of 0.60 (95% confidence interval from 0.52 to 0.69) using the small tree and an error rate of 35% with an AUC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval from 0.54 to 0.72) using the comprehensive tree. There were large differences between the two validation sets.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Conditional inference trees are able to augment prognostic clinical decision making for patients undergoing ECMO treatment. They may provide a degree of accuracy in mortality prediction and prognostic stratification using readily available variables.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37834887
pii: jcm12196243
doi: 10.3390/jcm12196243
pmc: PMC10573956
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Eur Heart J. 2015 Sep 1;36(33):2246-56
pubmed: 26033984
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2019 Aug;25(4):397-402
pubmed: 31116109
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):938-9; author reply 939
pubmed: 20189763
J Neurotrauma. 2022 Feb;39(3-4):266-276
pubmed: 33619988
Crit Care. 2019 Jan 11;23(1):11
pubmed: 30635022
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Feb 19;73(6):698-716
pubmed: 30765037
Crit Care. 2016 Oct 22;20(1):336
pubmed: 27769308
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):44-56
pubmed: 30617339
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Jul;28(6):507-15
pubmed: 24477680
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Mar;42(3):370-378
pubmed: 26825953
Crit Care. 2020 Dec 10;24(1):689
pubmed: 33302954
Circulation. 2019 Dec 10;140(24):2019-2037
pubmed: 31815538
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Sep 1;56(3):534-540
pubmed: 30789227
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Nov;45(11):1580-1589
pubmed: 31529353
Psychol Methods. 2009 Dec;14(4):323-48
pubmed: 19968396
Crit Care Med. 2019 Mar;47(3):e214-e221
pubmed: 30585830
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019 Jun;8(4):350-359
pubmed: 30003795
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 25;8:25
pubmed: 17254353
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Jan;11(1):68-83
pubmed: 30863575
Crit Care Med. 2021 Jan 1;49(1):7-18
pubmed: 33060505
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021 Apr;40(4):260-268
pubmed: 33551227
J Thorac Dis. 2022 Jun;14(6):1960-1971
pubmed: 35813709
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Oct;110(4):1193-1200
pubmed: 32454016
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858
Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2014 Sep;15(5-6):444-52
pubmed: 25141076

Auteurs

Julia Braun (J)

Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland.

Sebastian D Sahli (SD)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Donat R Spahn (DR)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Daniel Röder (D)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.

Holger Neb (H)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany.

Gösta Lotz (G)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany.

Raed Aser (R)

Clinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Markus J Wilhelm (MJ)

Clinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Alexander Kaserer (A)

Institute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH