ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
Assessment of PIM-2 performance among surgical patients with heart disease and correlation of results with RACHS-1.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 and the Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS) in the postoperative period of congenital heart disease patients.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from patient records to generate the scores and predictions using recommended techniques, demographic data and outcomes. The Mann-Whitney test, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, standardized mortality rate, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, chi square test, Poisson regression with robust variance and Spearman's test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 263 patients were evaluated, and 72 died (27.4%). These patients presented significantly higher PIM-2 values than survivors (p < 0.001). In the RACHS-1 classification, mortality was progressively higher according to the complexity of the procedure, with a 3.24-fold increase in the comparison between groups 6 and 2. The area under the ROC curve for PIM-2 was 0.81 (95%CI 0.75 - 0.87), while for RACHS-1, it was 0.70 (95%CI 0.63 - 0.77). The RACHS presented better calibration power in the sample analyzed. A significantly positive correlation was found between the results of both scores (rs = 0.532; p < 0.001).
conclusionRACHS presented good calibration power, and RACHS-1 and PIM-2 demonstrated good performance with regard to their discriminating capacities between survivors and non-survivors. Moreover, a positive correlation was found between the results of the two risk scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.