Otwarty dostęp

Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for Predicting the Incidence of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter-Associated Phlebitis

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  oraz   
31 lip 2024

Zacytuj
Pobierz okładkę

Fig. 1.

Patient PIVC flowchart (ICU, intensive care unit; PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter)
Patient PIVC flowchart (ICU, intensive care unit; PIVC, peripheral intravenous catheter)

Fig. 2.

Importance of predictors in the random survival forest model. The variable importance was measured and scaled to have a maximum value of 100.
Importance of predictors in the random survival forest model. The variable importance was measured and scaled to have a maximum value of 100.

Fig. 3.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of each model in the development set. (a) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for time-to-event outcomes; random survival forest: 0.645 (0.606–0.684), and Cox proportional hazards model: 0.581 (0.542–0.621). The black and green lines represent the random survival forest and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. (b) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for binary outcomes: LASSO, 0.699 (0.662–0.736); random forest, 0.980 (0.973–0.986); gradient boosting tree, 0.892 (0.870–0.914); and logistic regression, 0.725 (0.688–0.762). The black, red, green, and blue lines represent LASSO, random forest, gradient boosting tree, and logistic regression, respectively. CI: Confidence interval
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of each model in the development set. (a) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for time-to-event outcomes; random survival forest: 0.645 (0.606–0.684), and Cox proportional hazards model: 0.581 (0.542–0.621). The black and green lines represent the random survival forest and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. (b) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for binary outcomes: LASSO, 0.699 (0.662–0.736); random forest, 0.980 (0.973–0.986); gradient boosting tree, 0.892 (0.870–0.914); and logistic regression, 0.725 (0.688–0.762). The black, red, green, and blue lines represent LASSO, random forest, gradient boosting tree, and logistic regression, respectively. CI: Confidence interval

Fig. 4.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of each model in the validation set. (a) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for time-to-event outcomes: random survival forest, 0.655 (0.603–0.708); Cox Proportional Hazard Model, 0.516 (0.454–0.578). The black and green lines represent the random survival forest and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. (b) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for binary outcomes: LASSO, 0.680 (0.625–0.735); random forest, 0.677 (0.622–0.731); gradient boosting tree, 0.646 (0.587–0.706); and logistic regression, 0.633 (0.575–0.691). The black, red, green, and blue lines represent LASSO, random forest, gradient boosting tree, and logistic regression, respectively. CI: Confidence interval
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of each model in the validation set. (a) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for time-to-event outcomes: random survival forest, 0.655 (0.603–0.708); Cox Proportional Hazard Model, 0.516 (0.454–0.578). The black and green lines represent the random survival forest and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. (b) The c-statics (95% CI) of the models for binary outcomes: LASSO, 0.680 (0.625–0.735); random forest, 0.677 (0.622–0.731); gradient boosting tree, 0.646 (0.587–0.706); and logistic regression, 0.633 (0.575–0.691). The black, red, green, and blue lines represent LASSO, random forest, gradient boosting tree, and logistic regression, respectively. CI: Confidence interval

Patient characteristics of the development and validation cohorts at ICU admission

Variables Development cohort (N = 2,400) Validation cohort (N = 1,029)
Age, mean (SD), years 68.1 (15.2) 67.9 (15.0)
Sex, male (n, %) 1485 (61.9) 637 (61.9)
Body height, mean (SD), cm 161 (9.6) 161 (9.6)
Body weight, mean (SD), kg 59.9 (15.4) 60.1 (14.9)
BMI, mean (SD) 23.0 (4.7) 23.1 (4.5)
APACHE II, mean (SD) 19.2 (8.3) 19.2 (8.2)
SAPS II, mean (SD) 44.0 (19.5) 44.3 (19.0)
SOFA, mean (SD) 6.8 (3.7) 6.7 (3.7)
Charlson comorbidity index, mean (SD) 4.2 (2.6) 4.2 (2.6)

ICU admission from (n, %)
Operation room 921 (38.4) 427 (41.5)
Emergency room 965 (40.2) 404 (39.3)
General ward 363 (15.1) 142 (13.8)
Outpatients 18 (0.8) 2 (0.2)
Transfer from other hospital 133 (5.5) 54 (5.3)

Type of admission to the ICU (n, %)
Elective surgical 478 (19.9) 214 (20.8)
Emergency surgical 443 (18.5) 213 (20.7)
Medical 1479 (61.6) 602 (58.5)

ICU admission category (n, %)
Cardiology 860 (35.8) 341 (33.1)
Pulmonary 350 (14.6) 160 (15.6)
Gastrointestinal 243 (10.1) 100 (9.7)
Neurology 455 (19.0) 212 (20.6)
Trauma 95 (4.0) 41 (4.0)
Urology 21 (0.9) 10 (1.0)
Gynaecology 16 (0.7) 8 (0.8)
Skin/tissue 33 (1.4) 17 (1.7)
Others 327 (13.6) 140 (13.6)
Sepsis at ICU admission (n, %) 495 (20.6) 209 (20.3)
Mechanical ventilation within 24 hours after admission to ICU (n, %) 1433 (59.7) 631 (61.3)

PIVC characteristics during the insertion of the development and validation cohorts

Variables Development cohort (N = 2,400) Validation cohort (N = 1,029)
Catheter inserted by (n,%)
Doctor 203/1,879 (10.8) 81/801 (10.1)
Nurse 1,673/1,879 (89.0) 720/801 (89.9)

Inserted Site (n, %)
Upper arm 245/2,378 (10.3) 111/1,021 (10.9)
Forearm 1,303/2,378 (54.8) 546/1,021 (53.5)
Elbow 113/2,378 4.8) 50/1,021 (4.9)
Wrist 118/2,378 5.0) 44/1,021 (4.3)
Hand 341/2,378 (14.3) 166/1,021 (16.3)
Lower leg 152/2,378 (6.4) 73/1,021 (7.1)
Dorsal foot 106/2,378 (4.5) 31/1,021 (3.0)

Catheter material
PEU-Vialon* 777/2,400 (32.4) 310/1,029 (30.1)
Polyurethane 658/2,400 (27.4) 320/1,029 (31.1)
Polyethylene 0/2,400 (0) 0/1,029 (0)
Tetrafluoroethylene 910/2,400 (37.9) 382/1,029 (37.1)
Others 55/2,400 (2.3) 17/1,029 (1.7)

Catheter gauge (n,%)
14G 1/2,357 (0.04%) 0/1,011 (0)
16G 51/2,357 (2.2) 22/1,011 (2.2)
18G 56/2,357 (2.4) 33/1,011 (3.3)
20G 612/2,357 (26.0) 276/1,011 (27.3)
22G 1,592/2,357 (67.5) 662/1,011 (65.5)
24G 45/2,357 (1.9) 17/1,011 (1.7)

Antiseptic solution before catheterisation (n,%)
None 5/1,863 (0.3) 3/802 (0.4)
Alcohol 1,817/1,863 (97.5) 782/802 (97.5)
0.2% chlorhexidine alcohol 14/1,863 (0.8) 7/802 (0.9)
0.5% chlorhexidine alcohol 10/1,863 (0.5) 5/802 (0.6)
1.0% chlorhexidine alcohol 12/1,863 (0.6) 5/802 (0.6)
10% povidone iodine 2/1,863 (0.1) 0/802 (0)
other 3/1,863 (0.2) 0/802 (0)
Use of ultrasonography (n,%) 36/1,844 (1.9) 22/792 (2.8)

Number of trials for insertion (n,%)
1 1,501/1,834 (81.8) 618/785 (79.7)
2 221/1,834 (12.1) 92/785 (11.7)
≥3 112/1,834 (6.1) 75/785 (9.6)

Difficulties with the insertions (n, %)
Easy 882/1,811 (48.7) 350/783 (44.7)
Slightly easy 535/1,811 (29.5) 237/783 (30.3)
Slightly difficult 306/1,811 (16.9) 150/783 (19.2)
Difficult 88/1,811 (4.9) 46/783 (5.9)

Glove (n,%)
Sterile 14/1,836 (0.8) 5/794 (0.6)
Non-sterile 1,738/1,836 (94.7) 758/794 (95.5)
Nothing 84/1,836 (4.6) 31/794 (3.9)

Dressing (n,%)
Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing chrolehexidne 0/2,377 (0) 0/1,019 (0)
Sterile polyurethane dressing 2,338/2,377 (98.4) 989/1,019 (97.1)
Non-sterile polyurethane dressing polyuretane 35/2,377 (1.5) 25/1,019 (2.5)
Gauze dressing 0/2,377 (0) 1/1,019 (0.1)
Tape dressing 4/2,377 (0.2) 4/1,019 (0.4)
Any infection during catheter dwell (n, %)** 550/2,400 (22.9) 253/1,029 (24.6)
Duration of catheter dwell, median (IQR), hour 44.7 (20.7–79.1) 41.5 (21.0–76.5)
Phlebitis (n,%) 208/2,400 (8.7) 105/1,029 (10.2)

Difference of c-statistics in each model in the validation cohort

Model C-statistics (95%CI)
Binary outcome models
LASSO 0.680 (0.625–0.735)
Random forest 0.677 (0.622–0.731)
Gradient boosting tree 0.646 (0.587–0.706)
Logistic regression model 0.633 (0.575–0.691)

Survival outcome models
Random survival forest 0.655 (0.603–0.708)
Cox proportional hazards model 0.516 (0.454–0.578)

Difference of c-statistics in each model in the development cohort

Model C-statistics (95% CI)
Binary outcome models
LASSO 0.699 (0.662–0.736)
Random forest 0.980 (0.973–0.986)
Gradient boosting tree 0.892 (0.870–0.914)
Logistic regression model 0.725 (0.688–0.762)

Survival outcome models
Random survival forest 0.645 (0.606–0.684)
Cox proportional hazards model 0.581 (0.542–0.621)