Original Contribution
Risk stratification for hospitalization in acute asthma: the CHOP classification tree

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2009.04.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

Simple risk stratification rules are limited in acute asthma. We developed and externally validated a classification tree for asthma hospitalization.

Methods

Data were obtained from 2 large, multicenter studies on acute asthma, the National Emergency Department Safety Study and the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration cohorts. Both studies involved emergency department (ED) patients aged 18 to 54 years presenting to the ED with acute asthma. Clinical information was obtained from medical record review. The Classification and Regression Tree method was used to generate a simple decision tree. The tree was derived in the National Emergency Department Safety Study cohort and then was validated in the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration cohort.

Results

There were 1825 patients in the derivation cohort and 1335 in the validation cohort. Admission rates were 18% and 21% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively.

The Classification and Regression Tree method identified 4 important variables (CHOP): change [C] in peak expiratory flow severity category, ever hospitalization [H] for asthma, oxygen [O] saturation on room air, and initial peak expiratory flow [P]. In a simple 3-step process, the decision rule risk-stratified patients into 7 groups, with a risk of admission ranging from 9% to 48%. The classification tree performed satisfactorily on discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 and 0.65, respectively.

Conclusions

We developed and externally validated a novel classification tree for hospitalization among ED patients with acute asthma. Use of this explicit risk stratification rule may aid decision making in the emergency care of acute asthma.

Introduction

Acute asthma is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED), accounting for approximately 2 million ED visits and 500 000 hospitalizations in the United States each year [1]. Despite the significant morbidity associated with acute asthma, there has been a paucity of simple, practical, and validated tools for risk stratification in adult patients with acute asthma. Previous studies have used multivariable modeling and identified certain characteristics that are associated with asthma admissions [2], [3]. These multivariable models, however, may have limited use in clinical practice. They often involve mathematical equations or scoring systems and require access to a calculator or even a computer to convert point scores to risk estimates. Furthermore, these rules were derived from single-center studies and may be less generalizable to other EDs.

Unlike multivariable regression models, the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) method produces a simple decision tree that is intuitive and easy to apply in clinical practice [4], [5], [6]. The structure of the tree is clinically appealing and congruent with physicians' decision-making processes. As a result, the decision trees generated by CART have been used in a variety of clinical fields, such as emergency medicine [7], pulmonology [8], cardiology [9], [10], neurosurgery [11], and oncology [12]. In asthma, we are only aware of 2 studies that have used this method [13], [14]. These studies, however, have identified the factors associated with health services utilization in chronic asthma, which is not directly applicable to the acute care setting.

The objectives of this analysis were to develop and validate a practical and user-friendly classification tree for hospitalization among ED patients with acute asthma.

Section snippets

Study design and setting

This analysis used data from 2 large cohort studies on acute asthma, the National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS) and the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC).

Derivation cohort: asthma component of the NEDSS

The NEDSS is a large, multicenter study designed to characterize factors associated with the occurrence of errors in EDs. Details of the study design and data collection have been published previously [15]. Three clinical conditions were examined in the NEDSS, including acute myocardial infarction, dislocations, and

Results

There were 1825 patients with acute asthma in the derivation cohort and 1335 in the validation cohort. The patients in the derivation and validation cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, and initial oxygen saturation (Table 1). Patients in the validation cohort were more likely to be admitted for asthma in the past and present to the ED sooner, were more severe based on initial respiratory rate and PEF, and appeared to be more responsive to treatments, as suggested by more patients in

Discussion

Using the data from 2 large multicenter cohorts, we developed and externally validated a simple classification tree for hospital admission in acute asthma. Given its internal and external validity, we believe that this classification tree is a potentially useful tool for risk stratification and may aid decision making in the emergency care of acute asthma.

The classification tree includes 3 important variables (ie, hospitalization history, oxygen saturation, and initial PEF) that can be readily

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr David Blumenthal for his leadership of NEDSS. We also thank Ashley F. Sullivan, the MARC and NEDSS site Principal Investigators, and local chart abstractors. Without their help, this study would not have been possible.

References (28)

  • FischlM.A. et al.

    An index predicting relapse and need for hospitalization in patients with acute bronchial asthma

    N Engl J Med

    (1981)
  • BreimanL.

    Classification and Regression Trees

    (1984)
  • LaupacisA. et al.

    Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards

    JAMA

    (1997)
  • WassonJ.H. et al.

    Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards

    N Engl J Med

    (1985)
  • Cited by (0)

    The two underlying studies were supported by unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline (Research Triangle Park, NC) and grant R01 HS-13099 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, MD), respectively. Doctor Camargo also was funded by grant R01 HL-84401 (Bethesda, MD).

    View full text