Back to all available

Predicting non-surgical treatment failure in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax: The Base-C Score

respiratory-medicine
surgery-and-surgical-specialties

Abstract

Background: The probability of failure for non-surgical treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) is relatively high. Early identification of patients at risk of non-surgical treatment failure, with timely intervention, can lead to improved outcomes. This study aimed to develop a model to identify patients at high risk of non-surgical treatment failure, thereby personalizing treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from two large comprehensive hospitals. Demographic data, comorbidities, imaging findings and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for surgical intervention or the failure of non-surgical management to resolve the pneumothorax within 8 weeks. We employed multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors and established the Base-C score based on the regression coefficients, which was validated externally.

Results: In the present study, the derivation cohort consisted of 1378 patients, and the validation cohort comprised 506 patients. The Base-C score included pulmonary bullae, age, smoking, emphysema and the degree of lung collapse. The Base-C score demonstrated excellent discriminative ability in predicting SP treatment failure, with an AUC of 0.836 (95% CI, 0.813-0.860) in the derivation cohort and 0.829 (95% CI, 0.791-0.866) in the validation cohort. The Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test and calibration curves indicated good calibration in the derivation and validation cohorts. In the clinical application context, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) demonstrates that the Base-C score generates a positive net benefit for outcomes when the threshold probability is greater than 15%.

Conclusions: The Base-C score is an effective tool for identifying the risk of non-surgical treatment failure in patients with SP. It aids in guiding clinical management strategies and has the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].