Why the study?
Does the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score accurately predict mortality in pediatric ICU patients aged 0-18 years?
Does the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score accurately predict mortality in pediatric ICU patients aged 0-18 years?
The PIM3 score is a valid tool for predicting mortality in a Korean pediatric ICU, though its accuracy is limited in hemato-oncological patients.
Supports PIM3 for pediatric ICU mortality prediction; leaves open refinement for hemato-oncological subgroups.
To compare mortality rate, the adjustment of case-mix variables is needed. The Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 3 score is a widely used case-mix adjustment system of a pediatric intensive care unit (ICU), but there has been no validation study of it in Korea. We aim to validate the PIM3 in a Korean pediatric ICU, and extend the validation of the score from those aged 0-16 to 0-18 years, as patients aged 16-18 years are admitted to pediatric ICU in Korea. A retrospective cohort study of 1,710 patients was conducted in a tertiary pediatric ICU. To validate the score, the discriminatory power was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration was evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit (GOF) test. The observed mortality rate was 8.47%, and the predicted mortality rate was 6.57%. For patients aged < 18 years, the discrimination was acceptable (c-index = 0.76) and the calibration was good, with a χ² of 9.4 in the GOF test (P = 0.313). The observed mortality rate in the hemato-oncological subgroup was high (18.73%), as compared to the predicted mortality rate (7.13%), and the discrimination was unacceptable (c-index = 0.66). In conclusion, the PIM3 performed well in a Korean pediatric ICU. However, the application of the PIM3 to a hemato-oncological subgroup needs to be cautioned. Further studies on the performance of PIM3 in pediatric patients in adult ICUs and pediatric ICUs of primary and secondary hospitals are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: