Cardiovascular

Cardiopulmonary instability score and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease: a retrospective eICU cohort study.

TL;DR

Higher first-day cardiopulmonary instability (CPI) scores were associated with progressively greater in-hospital mortality in critically ill cardiovascular patients, but CPI's moderate discrimination and low positive predictive value 'do not support stand-alone use for individual prognostication or treatment decisions.'

Key Findings

In-hospital mortality increased progressively with higher CPI scores, ranging from 1.4% at CPI 0 to 28.0% at CPI 3-4.

  • Cohort included 61,273 eligible ICU stays from 49,991 patients across 206 hospitals during 2014-2015.
  • Overall in-hospital mortality was 13.4% (8,238 stays).
  • Mortality by CPI score: 1.4% (CPI 0), 4.6% (CPI 1), 11.6% (CPI 2), and 28.0% (CPI 3-4).
  • All four CPI components were available for 55,601 stays (90.7% of the cohort).

CPI ≥2 was independently associated with in-hospital mortality in adjusted analysis.

  • Adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital mortality at CPI ≥2: OR 4.45 (95% CI 4.06 to 4.89).
  • Relative risk for in-hospital mortality at CPI ≥2: RR 3.64 (95% CI 3.35 to 3.97).
  • Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses excluding mechanical ventilation, restricting to stays >24 hours, and accounting for repeated stays.

CPI alone demonstrated moderate apparent discrimination for in-hospital mortality.

  • Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for CPI alone was 0.732 (95% CI 0.726 to 0.738).
  • At the CPI ≥2 threshold, sensitivity was 90.4% and specificity was 39.4%.
  • Positive predictive value at CPI ≥2 was 18.8% and negative predictive value was 96.3%.
  • The low positive predictive value and moderate discrimination were cited as reasons CPI should not be used alone for individual prognostication.

CPI ≥2 was also associated with secondary outcomes including ICU mortality and prolonged ICU and hospital stays.

  • Secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, prolonged ICU stay, and prolonged hospital stay.
  • The association between CPI ≥2 and secondary outcomes was consistent with the primary outcome findings.
  • The CPI score assigned one point each for hypotension, hypoxaemia, tachycardia, and mechanical ventilation, yielding a total score of 0 to 4.

The study was conducted as a retrospective multicentre cohort using the eICU Collaborative Research Database, covering ICU admissions from US hospitals in 2014-2015.

  • The eICU database comprised ICU admissions from hospitals in the USA during 2014-2015.
  • Eligible participants were adults aged ≥18 years with cardiovascular disease and known hospital outcome status.
  • The unit of analysis was the ICU stay, not the individual patient.
  • 206 hospitals were represented in the cohort.

The CPI score is composed of four readily measurable clinical components assessed during the first 24 hours of ICU admission.

  • The four components are: hypotension, hypoxaemia, tachycardia, and mechanical ventilation.
  • Each component contributes one point, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 4.
  • The score is described as 'a simple descriptive summary of first-day cardiopulmonary instability.'

What This Means

This research examined whether a simple four-item scoring tool called the Cardiopulmonary Instability (CPI) score could predict which critically ill heart disease patients in the ICU were more likely to die in the hospital. The score gives one point each for four warning signs measurable in the first 24 hours of ICU care: low blood pressure, low oxygen levels, rapid heart rate, and being on a mechanical ventilator. The study used a large database of over 61,000 ICU stays from 206 US hospitals. It found that as CPI scores rose from 0 to 3-4, in-hospital death rates climbed sharply—from just 1.4% to 28%—and a score of 2 or higher was strongly associated with death, ICU mortality, and longer stays in the ICU and hospital. However, the study also found important limitations in using the CPI score on its own. While it had a reasonably good ability to identify patients who would survive (negative predictive value of 96.3%), it was poor at correctly identifying those who would die (positive predictive value of only 18.8%), and its overall ability to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors was only moderate. This means the score generates many false alarms—most patients flagged as high-risk by a CPI ≥2 actually survived. This research suggests that the CPI score is a straightforward and easy-to-calculate tool that captures meaningful patterns of early clinical deterioration in ICU patients with cardiovascular disease. It may be useful as a quick, descriptive summary of a patient's condition on admission, and for grouping patients in research studies. However, the authors caution that it should not be used alone to make decisions about an individual patient's prognosis or treatment, and should be considered alongside other clinical information and more comprehensive scoring tools.

Have a question about this study?

Citation

Li G, Shi Z, Gu T, Li G, Zhao Z, Shi L. (2026). Cardiopulmonary instability score and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease: a retrospective eICU cohort study.. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-123424