The Tanta University risk model could help identify patients with acute poisoning who would require intensive care unit level of care

Figures & data

Table 1. Clinical characteristics, the need for intensive care unit care, and outcomes of 400 patients with acute poisoning, who had an uneventful course or met the study endpoint.

	All patients	Uneventful course	Met endpoint
	(n = 400)	(n = 363)	(n = 37)	P value
Male	164 (41.0)	154 (42.4)	10 (27.0)	0.08
Female	236 (59.0)	209 (57.6)	27 (73.0)
Age (years)	40.3 (26.6–57.2)	38.5 (25.6–55.8)	56.2 (38.5–66.4)	0.0018
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	79.5 (70.0–88.5)	80 (70.0–89.0)	70 (60–80.8)	0.0048
Heart rate (beats/min)	90 (75.5–105.0)	90 (75.0–104.0)	100 (85.5–120.0)	0.0085
Respiratory rate (breaths/min)	16 (14.0–19.5)	16 (14.0–19.0)	16 (11.75–20.0)	0.73
Arterial oxygen saturation (%)	97 (95.0–99.0)	97 (95.0–99.0)	95 (92.8–99.0)	0.055
Glasgow Coma Scale	15 (13.0–15.0)	15 (13.0–15.0)	8 (3.8–14)	< 0.0001
Serum bicarbonate concentration (mmol/L)	24 (22.1–26.0)	24.3 (22.5–26.0)	21.1 (18–22.9)	< 0.0001
Tanta University risk model score	76.6 (52.6–81.6)	80.0 (75.7–82.8)	66.2 (58.1–72.0)	< 0.0002*
Tanta University risk model score < 73.46	94 (23.5)	63 (17.4)	31 (83.8)	< 0.0002*
Mechanical ventilation	33 (8.3)	0	33 (89.2)
Vasopressors	21 (5.3)	0	21 (56.8)
Death	3 (0.8)	0	3 (8.1)
Admitted to the intensive care unit	261 (65.3)	224 (61.7)	37 (100.0)	< 0.0001

Data are shown as median (interquartile range) and numbers (%).

* Denotes Bonferroni-adjusted P value due to multiple comparisons.

Table 2. Substances involved, time from exposure to consultation, and location of 400 patients with acute poisoning, who had an uneventful course or met the study endpoint.

	All patients	Uneventful course	Met endpoint
	(n = 400)	(n = 363)	(n = 37)	P value
Substances involved				0.19
Alcohol	1 (0.3)	1 (0.3)	0
Analgesics	19 (4.8)	19 (5.2)	0
Antidepressants	27 (6.8)	23 (6.3)	4 (10.8)
Street drugs	7 (1.8)	7 (1.9)	0
Sedatives	70 (17.5)	68 (18.7)	2 (5.4)
Other poisons (e.g., carbon monoxide, arsenic, cyanide)	2 (0.5)	2 (0.6)	0
Substances not otherwise specified	76 (19.0)	65 (17.9)	11 (29.7)
Combination of two or more substances	198 (49.5)	178 (49.0)	20 (54.1)
Time from exposure to consultation				0.06
< 1 h	62 (15.5)	58 (16.0)	4 (10.8)
1–12 h	226 (56.5)	209 (57.6)	17 (45.9)
> 12 h	45 (11.3)	41 (11.3)	4 (10.8)
Unknown at time of consultation	67 (16.8)	55 (15.2)	12 (32.4)
Type of hospital				0.07
Level 1 (basic care)	168 (42.0)	154 (42.4)	14 (37.8)
Level 2 (regional center)	161 (40.3)	150 (41.3)	11 (29.7)
Level 3 (regional referral center)	32 (8.0)	27 (7.4)	5 (13.5)
Level 4 (academic medical center)	26 (6.5)	20 (5.5)	6 (16.2)
Specialized hospital (e.g., psychiatric hospital)	13 (3.3)	12 (3.3)	1 (2.7)
Caller’s location by city size				0.87
Population < 5,000	2 (0.5)	2 (0.6)	0
Population < 20,000	97 (24.3)	87 (24.0)	10 (27.0)
Population < 100,000	183 (45.8)	168 (46.3)	15 (40.5)
Population > 100,000	118 (29.9)	106 (29.2)	12 (32.4)

Data are shown as numbers (%).

Figure 1. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the Tanta University risk model in predicting intensive care requirement in 400 patients with poisoning. Area under the curve = 0.871, P < 0.001, by the method of DeLong and colleagues [12].

DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, CR, upon reasonable request.