ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2018
Extravascular lung water index and Halperin score to predict outcome in critically ill patients.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic assessment of lung edema (RALE) score is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest after percutaneous implantation of extracorporeal life support.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Safety and efficacy of pulse-induced contour cardiac output monitoring in elderly patients with coronary artery disease and severe heart failure at coronary care units.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe real world extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) measurements obtained by pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) on the day of admission. These were then related to a radiologic score for lung edema, Halperin score and both the Halperin score and EVLWI were assessed for prediction of in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 311 patients admitted to a tertiary medical university hospital between February 2004 and December 2010 were included in this retrospective analysis and of these 177 patients were intubated. In-hospital mortality was assessed by logistic regression. In the overall cohort, EVLWI and the Halperin score correlated poorly (r = 0.17; p = 0.02). In intubated patients, EVLWI and Halperin score did not correlate (r = 0.09; p = 0.39), whereas in patients who were not intubated there was a moderate association (r = 0.30; p = 0.007). In the overall cohort, (a) EVLWI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.19; p = 0.01; area under the curve [AUC] 0.63, 95% CI 0.54-0.71) but not (b) Halperin score (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.996-1.004; p = 0.94; AUC 0.52, 95% CI 0.45-0.58) was associated with in-hospital mortality There was a robust association of EVLWI (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25; p = 0.03) but not Halperin score (HR 1.003, 95% CI 0.997-1.009; p = 0.30) with mortality in non-intubated patients. In intubated patients, neither EVLWI (HR 0.997 95% CI 0.990-1.003; p = 0.33) nor Halperin score (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.88-1.32; p = 0.47) was associated with mortality.
conclusionThe EVLWI correlated moderately with a radiologic score for lung edema, the Halperin score, in non-intubated but not in intubated patients. The EVLWI at admission was associated with in-hospital mortality in our patient collective of critically ill patients and might constitute not only a tool for risk stratification but most importantly a valuable treatment goal.
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.