Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35950802›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2022

Prediction of Postoperative Deterioration in Cardiac Surgery Patients Using Electronic Health Record and Physiologic Waveform Data.

Michael R Mathis, Milo C Engoren, Aaron M Williams, Ben E Biesterveld, Alfred J Croteau, Lingrui Cai, Renaid B Kim, Gang Liu, Kevin R Ward, Kayvan Najarian and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Research progress on electronic health records multimodal data fusion based on deep learning].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michael R MathisDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Michigan Integrated Center for Health Analytics and Medical Prediction, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-9697-2212
Milo C EngorenDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Aaron M WilliamsDepartment of General Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ben E BiesterveldDepartment of General Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Alfred J CroteauDepartment of General Surgery, Hartford HealthCare Medical Group, Hartford, Connecticut.
Lingrui CaiDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Renaid B KimDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gang LiuDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kevin R WardMichigan Integrated Center for Health Analytics and Medical Prediction, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kayvan NajarianDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Michigan Integrated Center for Health Analytics and Medical Prediction, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jonathan GryakDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
BCIL Collaborators Group

Funding

MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007863 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI COLLINS, KATHLEEN L. · 1985 to 2024
$38.3M
Early Diagnosis of Heart Failure: A Perioperative Data-Driven ApproachK01HL141701 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MATHIS, MICHAEL ROBERT · 2018 to 2022
$862k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL141701NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative hemodynamic deterioration among cardiac surgical patients can indicate or lead to adverse outcomes. Whereas prediction models for such events using electronic health records or physiologic waveform data are previously described, their combined value remains incompletely defined. The authors hypothesized that models incorporating electronic health record and processed waveform signal data (electrocardiogram lead II, pulse plethysmography, arterial catheter tracing) would yield improved performance versus either modality alone.

methodsIntensive care unit data were reviewed after elective adult cardiac surgical procedures at an academic center between 2013 and 2020. Model features included electronic health record features and physiologic waveforms. Tensor decomposition was used for waveform feature reduction. Machine learning-based prediction models included a 2013 to 2017 training set and a 2017 to 2020 temporal holdout test set. The primary outcome was a postoperative deterioration event, defined as a composite of low cardiac index of less than 2.0 ml min-1 m-2, mean arterial pressure of less than 55 mmHg sustained for 120 min or longer, new or escalated inotrope/vasopressor infusion, epinephrine bolus of 1 mg or more, or intensive care unit mortality. Prediction models analyzed data 8 h before events.

resultsAmong 1,555 cases, 185 (12%) experienced 276 deterioration events, most commonly including low cardiac index (7.0% of patients), new inotrope (1.9%), and sustained hypotension (1.4%). The best performing model on the 2013 to 2017 training set yielded a C-statistic of 0.803 (95% CI, 0.799 to 0.807), although performance was substantially lower in the 2017 to 2020 test set (0.709, 0.705 to 0.712). Test set performance of the combined model was greater than corresponding models limited to solely electronic health record features (0.641; 95% CI, 0.637 to 0.646) or waveform features (0.697; 95% CI, 0.693 to 0.701).

conclusionsClinical deterioration prediction models combining electronic health record data and waveform data were superior to either modality alone, and performance of combined models was primarily driven by waveform data. Decreased performance of prediction models during temporal validation may be explained by data set shift, a core challenge of healthcare prediction modeling. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresHypotensionAdultElectronic Health RecordsEpinephrineHumansMachine LearningEpinephrine

Identifiers

PMID35950802
PMCPMC10227693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.