Literature DB >> 16323627

[Comparing the performance of three severity scoring systems for ICU patients: APACHE III, SAPS II, MPM II].

Eun-Kyung Kim1, Young-Dae Kwon, Jeong-Hae Hwang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictive validity of three scoring systems; the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation(APACHE) III, simplified acute physiology score(SAPS) II, and mortality probability model (MPM) II systems in critically ill patients.
METHODS: A concurrent and retrospective study conducted by collecting data on consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) including surgical, medical and coronary care unit between January 1, 2004, and March 31, 2004. Data were collected on 348 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU (aged 16 years or older, no transfer, ICU stay at least 8 hours). Three models were analyzed using logistic regression. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and correct classification rate. Calibration was assessed using the Lemeshow-Hosmer goodness of fit H-statistic.
RESULTS: For the APACHE III, SAPS II and MPM II systems, the area under the receiver operating characterist ic(ROC) curves were 0.981, 0.978, and 0.941 respectively. With a predicted risk of 0.5, the sensitivities for the APACHE III, SAPS II, and MPM II systems were 81.1, 79.2 and 71.7%, the specificities 98.3, 98.6, and 98.3%, and the correct classification rates 95.7, 95.7, and 94.3%, respectively. The SAPS II and APACHE III systems showed good calibrations(chi-squared H=2.5838 p=0.9577 for SAPS II, and chi-squared H=4.3761 p=0.8217 for APACHE III).
CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE III and SAPS II systems have excellent powers of mortality prediction, and calibration, and can be useful tools for the quality assessment of intensive care units (ICUs).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16323627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health        ISSN: 1975-8375


  4 in total

1.  The body mass index as a prognostic factor of critical care.

Authors:  So Yeon Lim; So I Kim; Yon Ju Ryu; Jin Hwa Lee; Eun Mi Chun; Jung Hyun Chang
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 2.884

2.  Performance of APACHE IV in Medical Intensive Care Unit Patients: Comparisons with APACHE II, SAPS 3, and MPM0 III.

Authors:  Mihye Ko; Miyoung Shim; Sang-Min Lee; Yujin Kim; Soyoung Yoon
Journal:  Acute Crit Care       Date:  2018-11-21

3.  Prognostic performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II in major Croatian hospitals: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Kristian Desa; Mladen Peric; Ino Husedzinovic; Alan Sustic; Andelko Korusic; Vjekoslav Karadza; Drazen Matlekovic; Branka Prstec-Veronek; Marta Zuvic-Butorac; Jadranko Sokolic; Mladen Siranovic; Danica Bosnjak; Jasna Spicek-Macan; Denis Gustin; Drazenka Ozeg-Jakopovic
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.351

4.  The Predictive Value of Scores Used in Intensive Care Unit for Burn Patients Prognostic.

Authors:  M Novac; Alice Dragoescu; Andreea Stanculescu; Lucica Duca; Daniela Cernea
Journal:  Curr Health Sci J       Date:  2014-12-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.