Literature DB >> 16977481

Validation of the SAPS 3 admission prognostic model in patients with cancer in need of intensive care.

Márcio Soares1, Jorge I F Salluh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To validate the SAPS 3 admission prognostic model in patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: Ten-bed medical-surgical oncologic ICU. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifty-two consecutive patients admitted over a 3-year period.
INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: Data were prospectively collected at admission of ICU. SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores with respective estimated mortality rates were calculated. Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The mean age was 58.3+/-23.1 years; there were 471 (49%) scheduled surgical, 348 (37%) medical and 133 (14%) emergency surgical patients. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 24.6% and 33.5%, respectively. The mean SAPS 3 and SAPS II scores were 52.3+/-18.5 points and 35.3+/-20.7 points, respectively. All prognostic models showed excellent discrimination (AUROC>or=0.8). The calibration of SAPS II was poor (p<0.001). However, the calibration of standard SAPS 3 and its customized equation for Central and South American (CSA) countries were appropriate (p>0.05). SAPS II and standard SAPS 3 prognostic models tended somewhat to underestimate the observed mortality (SMR>1). However, when the customized equation was used, the estimated mortality was closer to the observed mortality [SMR=0.95 (95% CI=0.84-1.07)]. Similar results were observed when scheduled surgical patients were excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: The SAPS 3 admission prognostic model at ICU admission, in particular its customized equation for CSA, was accurate in our cohort of critically ill patients with cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16977481     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0374-4

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


  16 in total

1.  The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Authors:  J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Outcome of cancer patients considered for intensive care unit admission: a hospital-wide prospective study.

Authors:  Guillaume Thiéry; Elie Azoulay; Michael Darmon; Magali Ciroldi; Sandra De Miranda; Vincent Lévy; Fabienne Fieux; Delphine Moreau; Jean Roger Le Gall; Benoît Schlemmer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Comparison of three severity scores for critically ill cancer patients.

Authors:  Peter Schellongowski; Michael Benesch; Thomas Lang; Friederike Traunmüller; Christian Zauner; Klaus Laczika; Gottfried J Locker; Michael Frass; Thomas Staudinger
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-11-04       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Mortality Probability Models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D Teres; J Klar; J S Avrunin; S H Gehlbach; J Rapoport
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study.

Authors:  J R Le Gall; S Lemeshow; F Saulnier
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Is a specific oncological scoring system better at predicting the prognosis of cancer patients admitted for an acute medical complication in an intensive care unit than general gravity scores?

Authors:  T Berghmans; M Paesmans; J P Sculier
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-01-23       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: Objectives, methods and cohort description.

Authors:  Philipp G H Metnitz; Rui P Moreno; Eduardo Almeida; Barbara Jordan; Peter Bauer; Ricardo Abizanda Campos; Gaetano Iapichino; David Edbrooke; Maurizia Capuzzo; Jean-Roger Le Gall
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients - a review.

Authors:  Sylvia den Boer; Nicolette F de Keizer; Evert de Jonge
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2005-07-08       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  24 in total

1.  Calibration strategies to validate predictive models: is new always better?

Authors:  Nicolás Serrano
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  The performance and customization of SAPS 3 admission score in a Thai medical intensive care unit.

Authors:  Bodin Khwannimit; Rungsun Bhurayanontachai
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Have Severity Scores a Place in Predicting Septic Complications in ICU Multiple Trauma Patients?

Authors:  Daniela Ionescu
Journal:  J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures)       Date:  2016-08-10

4.  Validation of four prognostic scores in patients with cancer admitted to Brazilian intensive care units: results from a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Márcio Soares; Ulisses V A Silva; José M M Teles; Eliézer Silva; Pedro Caruso; Suzana M A Lobo; Felipe Dal Pizzol; Luciano P Azevedo; Frederico B de Carvalho; Jorge I F Salluh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  CCC meets ICU: redefining the role of critical care of cancer patients.

Authors:  Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Michael J Hallek; Alexander A Shimabukuro-Vornhagen; Matthias Kochanek
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Austrian validation and customization of the SAPS 3 Admission Score.

Authors:  Barbara Metnitz; Eva Schaden; Rui Moreno; Jean-Roger Le Gall; Peter Bauer; Philipp G H Metnitz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with head and neck cancer and severe acute illnesses.

Authors:  Márcio Soares; Jorge I F Salluh; Luisa Toscano; Fernando L Dias
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  External validation of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 in a cohort of 28,357 patients from 147 Italian intensive care units.

Authors:  Daniele Poole; Carlotta Rossi; Abramo Anghileri; Michele Giardino; Nicola Latronico; Danilo Radrizzani; Martin Langer; Guido Bertolini
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction in patients with acute tumor lysis syndrome.

Authors:  Márcio Soares; Guilherme A Feres; Jorge I F Salluh
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.365

10.  Is SAPS 3 better than APACHE II at predicting mortality in critically ill transplant patients?

Authors:  Vanessa M de Oliveira; Janete S Brauner; Edison Rodrigues Filho; Ruth G A Susin; Viviane Draghetti; Simone T Bolzan; Silvia R R Vieira
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.