comparison of different statistical methods to predict intensive care length of stay
DESCRIPTION
Comparison of different statistical methods to predict Intensive Care Length of Stay. Ilona Verburg Nicolette de Keizer Niels Peek. Dept. Of Medical Informatics Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam The Netherlands. ESCTAIC 2012,Timisoara. Background and objective. Background - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Comparison of different statistical methods to predict Intensive Care Length of Stay
Ilona VerburgNicolette de Keizer
Niels Peek
Dept. Of Medical InformaticsAcademic Medical CenterUniversity of Amsterdam
The Netherlands
ESCTAIC 2012,Timisoara
BackgroundIntensive Care Units (ICUs) assess their performance to improve quality and reduce costs
4-10-2012 2
Background
Background and objective
mortality
length of stay
Case mixEffectiveness of care
Efficiency of care
4-10-2012 3
Length of stay (mean) 10 days 5 days
Age (mean) 68 57
Medical vs surgical 80% medical 40% medicaladmission type (%) 20% surgical 60% surgical
ICU Length of stay is influenced by case mix.Example:
Background and objective
Background and objective
4-10-2012 4
Observed outcome
Predictive model
Expected outcome
ICU
Case mix
Com
pare
Case mix
4-10-2012 5
ObjectiveCompare the performance of different statistical regression methods to predict ICU LoS.
Background and objective
BackgroundModels exist to predict ICU mortality (example APACHE IV)Few models exist to predict ICU Length of Stay (LoS)No consensus about best modelling method
Data
4-10-2012 6
NICE registryDutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE)Registry of ICU admissions in the Netherlands (since
1996)All admissions from (voluntary) participating ICUs (>90%)
Evaluating (systematically) the effectiveness and efficiency of ICUs in the NetherlandsIdentifying quality of care problemsQuality assurance
Database
Data
4-10-2012 7
Exclusion criteriaAPACHE IV exclusion criteriaelective surgery
DataPatients admitted to ICUs participating NICE2009 - 201184 ICUs
81,190 (86.1%) survivors
94,251 (42.4%) admissions
13,061 (13.9%) non-survivors
Included patients
Length of stay
4-10-2012 8
Distribution of Length of Stay in fractional days
ICU survivors (n= 81,190) ICU non-survivors (n= 13,061)
Median: 1.7 (days)Mean: 4.2 Standard deviation: 8.2Maximum: 326.6
Median: 2.4 (days)Mean: 5.9Standard deviation: 10.2Maximum: 139.0
9
ICU Length of Stay
Distribution of discharge time
Modeling ICU length of stay
Different methods to model ICU length of stay (in fractional days)
Ordinary least square (OLS) regression LoS and Log-transformed LoS Most frequently used method in literature
4-10-2012 10
4-10-2012 11
Modeling ICU length of stay
Different methods to model ICU length of stay (in fractional days)
Ordinary least square (OLS) regression LoS and Log-transformed LoS
General linear models (GLM) Gaussian - difference with OLS is the log link functionGamma - LoS time until discharge
- depending on chosen parameters positively skewedPoisson - LoS count data
`-depending on chosen parameters positively skewed- property: expectation = variance → overdispersion
•Negative binomial - count data -depending on chosen parameters positively skewed- generalisation of poisson
4-10-2012 12
Modeling ICU length of stay
Different methods to model ICU length of stay (in fractional days)Ordinary least square (OLS) regression LoS and Log-transformed LoS
General linear models (GLM) 4 different families Gaussian Gamma Poisson negative binomial
Cox proportional Hazard (Cox PH) regressionNo assumptions on the shape of the distributionOmits the need of transform the outcome
4-10-2012 13
Selection of covariatesStarting with large set of variablesKnown relationship with LoS (literature)Stepwise backwards elimination of variables
Modeling ICU length of stay
Included case mixDemographicsAgeGenderAdmission typeDiagnoses (APACHE IV)Severity of illness (APACHE IV severity-of-illness score)Different comorbidities (21)
4-10-2012 14
Performance measures
Validation
Squared Pearson correlation = R2 =
Root Mean squared prediction error (RMSPE) =
Relative BIAS =
Relative mean absolute prediction error (MAPE) =
2
)ˆ()()ˆ,(
YYYYCov
k
kk yEyn
21
kk
kk
kk
yn
yn
Eyn
1
11
kk
kkk
yn
yEyn
1
1
Good prediction
High ↑
Low ↓
Low ↓- or +
Low ↓
Validation
4-10-2012 15
ValidationPerformance measures calculated on original dataCorrecting for optimistic bias100 bootstrap samples
4-10-2012 16
Covariates survivorsOLS reg los
OLS reg log los
GLM: gaussian
GLM: poisson
GLM: negative binomial
GLM: Gamma
Cox PH
chronic dialysis -1.04 -0.16 -0.25 -0.26 -0.28 -0.28 0.31cva 0.74 0.1 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.26 -0.3diabetes -0.34 -0.01 -0.07 -0.06 -0.04 -0.04 0.03resperatory insufficient 0.38 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.15 0.15 -0.11spline Aps (1) 5.55 0.64 1.74 1.65 1.61 1.61 -1.52spline Aps (2) 11.07 1.09 3.16 2.78 2.64 2.64 -2.57spline Aps (3) 15.98 0.99 2.07 2 2.08 2.08 -1.79
Results coefficients
Covariates non-survivorsOLS reg los
OLS reg log los
GLM: gaussian
GLM: poisson
GLM: negative binomial
GLM: Gamma
Cox PH
chronic dialysis 0.15 0.08cva -0.68 -0.18 -0.15 -0.12 -0.12 0.09diabetes 0.35 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 -0.05resperatory insufficient -0.51 -0.03 -0.11 -0.1 -0.09 -0.09 0.07spline Aps (1) -5.59 -0.43 -0.94 -0.84 -0.8 -0.8 0.7spline Aps (2) -6.08 -0.73 -1.09 -1.26 -1.53 -1.55 1.54spline Aps (3) -6.47 -0.84 -1.64 -1.76 -1.87 -1.88 1.83
R2 RMSPE Relative BIAS Relative MAPE
OLS regression (LoS) 0.174 7.448 0.008 0.812
OLS regression (log(LoS)) 0.183 7.714 -0.400 0.674
GLM Gaussian 0.197 7.335 0.001 0.771
GLM Poisson 0.194 7.349 0.000 0.769
GLM Negative Binomial 0.186 7.388 0.005 0.773
GLM Gamma 0.184 7.407 0.005 0.773
Cox PH regression 0.097 9.002 -0.693 0.938
Results validation
4-10-2012 17
ICU survivors
Mean observed > mean expectedUnderestimation of mean LoS
R2 RMSPE Relative BIAS Relative MAPEOLS regression (LoS ) 0.107 9.618 0.005 0.891
OLS regression (log(LoS)) 0.107 10.213 -0.510 0.762
GLM Gaussian 0.134 9.462 -0.009 0.868
GLM Poisson 0.128 9.504 0.000 0.872GLM Negative Binomial 0.12 9.545 -0.001 0.872GLM Gamma 0.112 9.602 -0.001 0.877Cox PH regression 0.075 11.388 -0.808 0.906
Results validation
4-10-2012 18
ICU non-survivors
Conclusion and discussion
GLM models shows best performance
Poorest performance found for Cox PH regression
Large relative bias was found for OLS regression of log-transformed LoS
4-10-2012 19
Difficult to predict ICU LoS
Influenced by admission and discharge policySeasonal pattern for admission and discharge time
Skewed to the right
Differences in performance between models not statistically tested
Conclusion and discussion
4-10-2012 20
Similar study for CABG patients (Austin et al.), with comparable results
Different patient type
Different distribution of length of stay
Future research
Different models for survivors and non-survivors
combining with mortality in one prediction
Statistical methods to predict ICU LoS
developing a model for benchmarking purposes
4-10-2012 21
Questions?
Thank you for your attention!
APACHE IV Exclusiecriteria
4-10-2012 22
• Age < 16
• ICU admission < 4 hours
• Hospital admission >365 days
• Died during admission
• Readmissions
• Admissions from CCU/IC other hospital
• No diagnose
• Burns
• Transplantations
• Missing hospital discharge