Pediatric Simplified Acute Physiology Score II: Establishment of a New, Repeatable Pediatric Mortality Risk Assessment Score

• Published in: Frontiers in pediatrics Vol. 9; p. 757822
• Main Authors: Irschik, Stefan, Veljkovic, Jelena, Golej, Johann, Schlager, Gerald, Brandt, Jennifer B., Krall, Christoph, Hermon, Michael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 28.10.2021
• Subjects: critical care; mortality; Pediatrics; pediatrics–children; risk assessment; scoring systems
• ISSN: 2296-2360; 2296-2360
• DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.757822

Objectives: In critical care it is crucial to appropriately assess the risk of mortality for each patient. This is especially relevant in pediatrics, with its need for accurate and repeatable scoring. Aim of this study was to evaluate an age-adapted version of the expanded Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; (p-SAPS II), a repeatable, newly-designed scoring system compared to established scores (Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score/pSOFA, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score-2/PELOD-2 and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3/PIM3). Design: This retrospective cohort pilot study included data collected from patients admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at the Medical University of Vienna between July 2017 through December 2018. Patients: 231 admissions were included, comprising neonates (gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks) and patients up to 18 years of age with a PICU stay longer than 48 h. Main Outcomes: Mortality risk prediction and discrimination between survivors and non-survivors were the main outcomes of this study. The primary statistical methods for evaluating the performance of each score were the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and goodness-of-fit test. Results: Highest AUROC curve was calculated for p-SAPS II (AUC = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77–0.96; p < 0.001). This was significantly higher than the AUROCs of PELOD-2/pSOFA but not of PIM3. However, in a logistic regression model including p-SAPS II and PIM3 as covariates, p-SAPS II had a significant effect on the accuracy of prediction ( p = 0.003). Nevertheless, according to the goodness-of-fit test for p-SAPS II and PIM3, p-SAPS II overestimated the number of deaths, whereas PIM3 showed acceptable estimations. Repeatability testing showed increasing AUROC values for p-SAPS II throughout the clinical stay (0.96 at day 28) but still no significant difference to PIM 3. The prediction accuracy, although improved over the days and even exceeded PIM 3. Conclusions: The newly-created p-SAPS II performed better than the established PIM3 in terms of discriminating between survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, p-SAPS II can be assessed repeatably throughout a patient's PICU stay what improves mortality prediction. However, there is still a need to optimize calibration of the score to accurately predict mortality sooner throughout the clinical stay.