Pediatrician Perspectives on Brief Resolved Unexplained Events

External Validation of Brief Resolved Unexplained Events Prediction Rules for Serious Underlying Diagnosis

Importance

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) higher-risk criteria for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) have a low positive predictive value (4.8%) and misclassify most infants as higher risk (>90%). New BRUE prediction rules from a US cohort of 3283 infants showed improved discrimination; however, these rules have not been validated in an external cohort.

Objective

To externally validate new BRUE prediction rules and compare them with the AAP higher-risk criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted from 2017 to 2021 and monitored for 90 days after index presentation. The setting included infants younger than 1 year with a BRUE identified through retrospective chart review from 11 Canadian hospitals. Study data were analyzed from March 2022 to March 2024.

Exposures

The BRUE prediction rules.

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary outcome was a serious underlying diagnosis, defined as conditions where a delay in diagnosis could lead to increased morbidity or mortality.

Results

Of 1042 patients (median [IQR] age, 41 [13-84] days; 529 female [50.8%]), 977 (93.8%) were classified as higher risk by the AAP criteria. A total of 79 patients (7.6%) had a serious underlying diagnosis. For this outcome, the AAP criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI, 95.4%-100.0%), a specificity of 6.7% (95% CI, 5.2%-8.5%), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09), and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.53-0.54). The BRUE prediction rule for discerning serious diagnoses displayed an AUC of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.54-0.67; calibration intercept: 0.60), which improved to an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76; P < .001; calibration intercept: 0.00) after model revision. Event recurrence was noted in 163 patients (15.6%). For this outcome, the AAP criteria yielded a sensitivity of 99.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-100.0%), a specificity of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.2%), an LR+ of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10), and an AUC of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.56-0.58). The AUC of the prediction rule stood at 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72; calibration intercept: 0.15).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this multicenter cohort study show that the BRUE prediction rules outperformed the AAP higher-risk criteria on external geographical validation, and performance improved after recalibration. These rules provide clinicians and families with a more precise tool to support decision-making, grounded in individual risk tolerance.

Identifying serious underlying diagnoses among patients with brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs): a Canadian cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the demographics and clinical outcomes of infants with brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

11 centres within the Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network.

PATIENTS

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) following a BRUE (2017-2021) were eligible, when no clinical cause identified after a thorough history and physical examination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Serious underlying diagnosis (requiring prompt identification) and event recurrence (within 90 days).

RESULTS

Of 1042 eligible patients, 665 were hospitalised (63.8%), with a median stay of 1.73 days. Diagnostic tests were performed on 855 patients (82.1%), and 440 (42.2%) received specialist consultations. In total, 977 patients (93.8%) were categorised as higher risk BRUE per the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. Most patients (n=551, 52.9%) lacked an explanatory diagnosis; however, serious underlying diagnoses were identified in 7.6% (n=79). Epilepsy/infantile spasms were the most common serious underlying diagnoses (2.0%, n=21). Gastro-oesophageal reflux was the most common non-serious underlying diagnosis identified in 268 otherwise healthy and thriving infants (25.7%). No instances of invasive bacterial infections, arrhythmias or metabolic disorders were found. Recurrent events were observed in 113 patients (10.8%) during the index visit, and 65 patients had a return to ED visit related to a recurrent event (6.2%). One death occurred within 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a low risk for a serious underlying diagnosis, where the majority of patients remain without a clear explanation. This study provides evidence-based risk for adverse outcomes, critical information to be used when engaging in shared decision-making with caregivers.

Risk Prediction After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event

OBJECTIVES

Only 4% of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) are caused by a serious underlying illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines do not distinguish patients who would benefit from further investigation and hospitalization. We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk of a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified infants presenting with a BRUE to 15 children's hospitals (2015-2020). We used logistic regression in a split-sample to derive and validate a risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Of 3283 eligible patients, 565 (17.2%) had a serious underlying diagnosis (n = 150) or a recurrent event (n = 469). The AAP's higher-risk criteria were met in 91.5% (n = 3005) and predicted a serious diagnosis with 95.3% sensitivity, 8.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.57). A derived model based on age, previous events, and abnormal medical history demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.59-0.70). In contrast to the AAP criteria, patients >60 days were more likely to have a serious underlying diagnosis (odds ratio:1.43, 95%CI: 1.03-1.98, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Most infants presenting with a BRUE do not have a serious underlying pathology requiring prompt diagnosis. We derived 2 models to predict the risk of a serious diagnosis and event recurrence. A decision support tool based on this model may aid clinicians and caregivers in the discussion on the benefit of diagnostic testing and hospitalization (https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10400/brief-resolved-unexplained-events-2.0-brue-2.0-criteria-infants).