Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Prediction models for mortality in ICU patients with delirium show fair discriminationStudy develops models to predict mortality risk in ICU patients with delirium

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that mortality prediction models for delirious ICU patients require external validation before clinical use.

This substudy of the AID-ICU trial developed clinical prediction models for 90-day and 1-year mortality in adult ICU patients with delirium. The analysis included 632 delirious ICU patients from three high-enrolling hospitals in the trial who had available pre-admission functional status data. The study aimed to create prediction models, not to test a clinical intervention.

The primary outcome was the development of prediction models using elastic net regression. For 90-day mortality, the optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70-0.78). For 1-year mortality, the optimism-adjusted AUC was also 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70-0.77). Key predictors in the models included frailty, age, Simplified Mortality Score for ICU (SMS-ICU), advanced cancer, and surgical admission. The models demonstrated good calibration.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported as this was a prediction modeling study. The authors note this is not a causal inference study. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping with optimism adjustment. The models were developed and validated in a specific subset of patients from one trial, and their performance in other settings is unknown. The study does not test whether using the models improves clinical outcomes.

Practice relevance is limited as these models require validation in other ICU settings. Future studies are needed to test whether the model is valid in other ICU settings and whether its performance is sufficient to have clinical value. The clinical utility for individual patient decision-making is not yet established.

Researchers studied whether they could predict which ICU patients with delirium were at higher risk of dying within 90 days or one year. They looked at 632 adult patients from a larger trial who had delirium in the ICU and information about their health before admission. The team created mathematical models using factors like frailty, age, cancer history, and type of hospital admission.

The models showed fair ability to distinguish between patients with different mortality risks, with similar accuracy for both 90-day and 1-year predictions. The models were carefully tested within this specific patient group to check their reliability.

It's important to know these models were developed using patients from just three hospitals in one clinical trial. They haven't been tested in other ICU settings yet, so we don't know if they would work equally well elsewhere. The study also didn't test whether using these predictions would actually help doctors make better decisions or improve patient outcomes.

For now, this research represents an early step toward better understanding outcomes for ICU patients with delirium. The models need validation in broader patient populations before they could potentially be used to inform clinical care discussions.

What this means for you:
Early models predict delirium patient outcomes but need testing in more hospitals before clinical use.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 1,000
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
PURPOSE: Pre-admission functional status affects patients' ability to overcome the deteriorating effects of acute critical illness. We aimed to develop a clinical prediction model for 90-day and 1-year mortality based on pre-admission data, including functional status, in adult delirious ICU patients. METHODS: We included participants randomized to the three highest-enrolling hospitals in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID-ICU) trial, with pre-admission data on the Clinical Frailty Scale, Comorbidity-Polypharmacy Score, and Barthel-20 score. Ten candidate models were evaluated using multiple modeling approaches. Final models were chosen based on the hyperparameter setting maximizing the Cox-Snell pseudo R. All baseline variables and trial allocation were included. Final models were retrained on the full dataset, with internal validation performed using bootstrapping validation adjusting for optimism. RESULTS: Of 1000 participants in AID-ICU, 632 were included: 630 provided data on 90-day mortality, and 610 on 1-year mortality. The elastic net regression models demonstrated stable, robust performance. The optimism-adjusted areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.78) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70-0.77) for the 90-day and 1-year mortality models, respectively. Calibration was good across the risk spectrum. Frailty, age, the Simplified Mortality Score for the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU), advanced cancer, and surgical admission contributed most to the prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: We developed models to predict 90-day and 1-year mortality at ICU admission in patients enrolled in the AID-ICU trial, using baseline variables, including functional status measures. The models showed fair discrimination and good calibration, with frailty, age, SMS-ICU, advanced cancer, and surgical admission as key predictors. Future studies are needed to test whether the model is valid in other ICU settings and whether its performance is sufficient to have clinical value. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This article presents mortality prediction models for ICU patients with delirium that incorporate pre-admission functional status and apply several modern statistical learning approaches, providing an instructive and transparent example of contemporary prediction modeling. The resulting elastic net regression models showed fair discrimination and good calibration for predicting 90-day and 1-year mortality, with frailty, age, and illness severity emerging as the strongest predictors. However, such models should be interpreted cautiously at the individual patient level and may be most useful for identifying patients at increased risk who may benefit from careful clinical assessment, individualized treatment, and close follow-up.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.