Observational studyOpen heart2025
Comparative analysis of clinical scores in predicting ICU and hospital mortality in nonagenarians and centenarians after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective observational study using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Database (2010-2024).
Observational study in Open heart, 2025. 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.
- Critical illness at extreme age: outcomes and clinical characteristics of centenarian ICU admissions in Australia and New Zealand.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonagenarians and centenarians admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) represent a growing yet understudied population. Clinicians require accurate prognostic tools to inform early goals of care discussions and resource allocation. This study evaluated the predictive performance of commonly used clinical scores in this unique cohort.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective binational cohort study of nonagenarian and centenarian patients admitted to ICUs in Australia and New Zealand between 2010 and 2024 after IHCA, using data from the ANZICS Adult Patient Database. We assessed the prognostic accuracy of four clinical scores: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III (APACHE III), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Glasgow Coma Scale, in predicting ICU and hospital mortality. Discrimination was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Multivariable Cox regression and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to examine associations with mortality and discharge outcomes.
resultsA total of 219 patients (median age 91.6 years; 44% female) were included. ICU and hospital mortality were 45.2% and 55.7%, respectively. The APACHE III score showed the highest discriminatory ability (ICU mortality AUROC=0.850; hospital mortality AUROC=0.842), followed by the SOFA score (AUROCs=0.758 and 0.761, respectively). The CFS showed poor prognostic performance (AUROCs close to 0.5). In adjusted Cox models, both APACHE III and SOFA scores were independently associated with mortality. SOFA scores were associated with longer ICU length of stay, while higher APACHE III scores were associated with shorter hospital stay, likely reflecting early mortality.
conclusionsIn the oldest critically ill patients following IHCA, physiologic severity scores, particularly APACHE III and SOFA, outperform frailty in predicting short-term mortality and resource use. These findings support the integration of validated scoring systems into early clinical decision-making to improve care precision and guide resource allocation in ageing ICU populations.
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.