Search

Objective: Clinical decision instruments (CDIs) could be useful to aid risk stratification and disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with cirrhosis. Our primary objective was to derive and internally validate a novel Cirrhosis Risk Instrument for Stratifying Post-Emergency department mortality (CRISPE) for the outcomes of 14- and 30-day post-ED mortality. Secondarily, we externally validated the existing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for explicit use in ED patients and prediction of the same outcomes., Methods: A cohort of 2093 adults with cirrhosis, at 16 sites in a statewide health system, was analyzed for 119 candidate variables available at ED disposition. LASSO with 10-fold cross-validation was used in variable selection for 14-day (CRISPE-14) and 30-day (CRISPE-30) logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each variant of the CRISPE and MELD scores and compared via Delong's test. Predictions were compared to actual ED disposition for predictive value and reclassification statistics., Results: Median (interquartile range [IQR]) characteristics of the cohort were age 62 (53-70) years and MELD 3.0 13.0 (8.0-20.0). Mortality was 4.3% and 8.5% at 14 and 30 days, respectively. CRISPE-14 and CRISPE-30 outperformed each MELD variant, achieving AUROC of 0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866) and 0.829 (0.796-0.861), respectively. MELD 3.0 AUROCs were 0.724 (0.667-0.781) and 0.715 (0.672-0.781), respectively. Compared to ED disposition, CRISPE-14, CRISPE-30, and MELD 3.0 significantly improved positive and negative predictive value and net reclassification index at multiple cutoffs. Applying CRISPE-30 (cutoff 4.5) favorably reclassified one net ED disposition for mortality for every 12 patients, while MELD 3.0 net reclassified one disposition per 84 patients., Conclusions: CDIs may be useful in risk-stratifying ED patients with cirrhosis and aiding disposition decision making. The novel CRISPE CDI showed powerful performance and requires external validation, while the existing MELD 3.0 score has moderate performance and is now externally-validated in an ED population for short-term mortality., (© 2025 The Author(s). Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)