Literature DB >> 16205890

The influence of missing components of the Acute Physiology Score of APACHE III on the measurement of ICU performance.

Bekele Afessa1, Mark T Keegan, Ognjen Gajic, Rolf D Hubmayr, Steve G Peters.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of missing Acute Physiology Score (APS) values on risk-adjusted mortality.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III database.
SETTING: The intensive care units (ICUs) of an academic medical center. PATIENTS: 38,411 patients admitted to ICU between October 1994 and December 2003. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: Data were collected on ICU type, missing first ICU day APS values, predicted and observed hospital mortality, standardized mortality ratio (SMR), 95% confidence interval (CI), odds ratio (OR). The overall observed and predicted hospital mortality rates were 8.7% and 10.8%, respectively, with SMR of 0.806 (95% CI 0.779-0.834). Complete data were available in 829 (2.2%). Vital signs were missing in almost none and serum albumin and bilirubin in over 80% of the patients. The number of missing variables was higher in less sick and surgical ICU patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of dying in the hospital was significantly associated with the number of missing APS variables (OR 1.058, 95% CI 1.027-1.090) when adjusted for the severity of illness. The risk of death was also associated with the type of missing variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Since missing APS values may lead to underestimation of the predicted mortality rates, the number and type of missing variables should be taken into consideration when assessing the performance of an ICU. Unless data collection is standardized, future prognostic models should use variables that are routinely measured in most critically ill patients without sacrificing statistical precision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16205890     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-2751-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  35 in total

1.  Measuring intensive care unit performance: a way to move forward.

Authors:  Jack E Zimmerman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.598

2.  Organizational changes in a single intensive care unit affect benchmarking.

Authors:  Arthur R H van Zanten; Kees H Polderman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-04-20       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement.

Authors:  K H Polderman; A R Girbes; L G Thijs; R J Strack van Schijndel
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.955

4.  Evaluation of an interdisciplinary data set for national intensive care unit assessment.

Authors:  P G Metnitz; H Vesely; A Valentin; C Popow; M Hiesmayr; K Lenz; C G Krenn; H Steltzer
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Evaluating the performance of an institution using an intensive care unit benchmark.

Authors:  Bekele Afessa; Mark T Keegan; Rolf D Hubmayr; James M Naessens; Ognjen Gajic; Kirsten Hall Long; Steve G Peters
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system.

Authors:  W A Knaus; J E Zimmerman; D P Wagner; E A Draper; D E Lawrence
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  The use of intensive care information systems alters outcome prediction.

Authors:  R J Bosman; H M Oudemane van Straaten; D F Zandstra
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  A method for assessing the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of intensive care units: a multicenter inception cohort study.

Authors:  J Rapoport; D Teres; S Lemeshow; S Gehlbach
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Mortality probability models for patients in the intensive care unit for 48 or 72 hours: a prospective, multicenter study.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; J Klar; D Teres; J S Avrunin; S H Gehlbach; J Rapoport; M Rué
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  The use of benchmarking to identify top performing critical care units: a preliminary assessment of their policies and practices.

Authors:  Jack E Zimmerman; Carlos Alzola; Kathryn T Von Rueden
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.425

View more
  13 in total

1.  Using risk adjustment systems in the ICU: avoid scoring an "own goal".

Authors:  Kees H Polderman; Philipp G H Metnitz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Year in review in intensive care medicine, 2005. II. Infection and sepsis, ventilator-associated pneumonia, ethics, haematology and haemostasis, ICU organisation and scoring, brain injury.

Authors:  Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Informatics infrastructure for syndrome surveillance, decision support, reporting, and modeling of critical illness.

Authors:  Vitaly Herasevich; Brian W Pickering; Yue Dong; Steve G Peters; Ognjen Gajic
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Incorporation of physiological trend and interaction effects in neonatal severity of illness scores: an experiment using a variant of the Richardson score.

Authors:  Michael Kuzniewicz; David Draper; Gabriel J Escobar
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Use of genetic programming, logistic regression, and artificial neural nets to predict readmission after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Milo Engoren; Robert H Habib; John J Dooner; Thomas A Schwann
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-03-16       Impact factor: 2.502

6.  Critical Care Nurses Inadequately Assess SAPS II Scores of Very Ill Patients in Real Life.

Authors:  Andreas Perren; Marco Previsdomini; Ilaria Perren; Paolo Merlani
Journal:  Crit Care Res Pract       Date:  2012-04-02

7.  Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index with SAPS and APACHE scores for prediction of mortality following intensive care.

Authors:  Steffen Christensen; Martin Berg Johansen; Christian Fynbo Christiansen; Reinhold Jensen; Stanley Lemeshow
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 8.  Prognostic value of circulating DNA levels in critically ill and trauma patients.

Authors:  Edison Moraes Rodrigues Filho; Nilo Ikuta; Daniel Simon; Andrea Pereira Regner
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

9.  What every intensivist should know about prognostic scoring systems and risk-adjusted mortality.

Authors:  Mark T Keegan; Marcio Soares
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2016-09

10.  Developing a feasible and valid scoring system for critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

Authors:  Gentle Sunder Shrestha
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.