Literature DB >> 18845649

Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit.

Y Sakr1, C Krauss, A C K B Amaral, A Réa-Neto, M Specht, K Reinhart, G Marx.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 has recently been developed, but not yet validated in surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We compared the performance of SAPS 3 with SAPS II and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score in surgical ICU patients.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from all patients admitted to a German university hospital postoperative ICU between August 2004 and December 2005 were analysed. The probability of ICU mortality was calculated for SAPS II, APACHE II, adjusted APACHE II (adj-APACHE II), SAPS 3, and SAPS 3 customized for Europe [C-SAPS3 (Eu)] using standard formulas. To improve calibration of the prognostic models, a first-level customization was performed, using logistic regression on the original scores, and the corresponding probability of ICU death was calculated for the customized scores (C-SAPS II, C-SAPS 3, and C-APACHE II).
RESULTS: The study included 1851 patients. Hospital mortality was 9%. Hosmer and Lemeshow statistics showed poor calibration for SAPS II, APACHE II, adj-APACHE II, SAPS 3, and C-SAPS 3 (Eu), but good calibration for C-SAPS II, C-APACHE II, and C-SAPS 3. Discrimination was generally good for all models [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.78 (C-APACHE II) to 0.89 (C-SAPS 3)]. The C-SAPS 3 score appeared to have the best calibration curve on visual inspection.
CONCLUSIONS: In this group of surgical ICU patients, the performance of SAPS 3 was similar to that of APACHE II and SAPS II. Customization improved the calibration of all prognostic models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18845649     DOI: 10.1093/bja/aen291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  38 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.  Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical intensive care unit.

Authors:  Hannah Lee; Yoon-Jung Shon; Hyerim Kim; Hyesun Paik; Hee-Pyoung Park
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2014-08-26

4.  Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Maya L Petersen; Marco Carone; Matthieu Resche Rigon; Sylvie Chevret; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 30.700

Review 5.  Clinical review: scoring systems in the critically ill.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Temporary abdominal closure with polytetrafluoroethylene prosthetic mesh in critically ill non-trauma patients.

Authors:  A Robin-Lersundi; V Vega Ruiz; J López-Monclús; A Cruz Cidoncha; A Abella Alvarez; D Melero Montes; L Blazquez Hernando; M A García-Ureña
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Sex differences in crude mortality rates and predictive value of intensive care unit-based scores when applied to the cardiac intensive care unit.

Authors:  Romana Herscovici; James Mirocha; Jed Salomon; Noel B Merz; Bojan Cercek; Michael Goldfarb
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2019-08-27

8.  The predictive power of SAPS-3 and SOFA scores and their relations with patient outcomes in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  İbrahim Mungan; Şerife Bektaş; Mine Altınkaya Çavuş; Sema Sarı; Sema Turan
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2019-06-13

9.  A comparative study of four intensive care outcome prediction models in cardiac surgery patients.

Authors:  Fabian Doerr; Akmal Ma Badreldin; Matthias B Heldwein; Torsten Bossert; Markus Richter; Thomas Lehmann; Ole Bayer; Khosro Hekmat
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 1.637

10.  Modification of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score through recalibration of risk prediction model in critical care patients of a respiratory disease referral center.

Authors:  Ali A Velayati; Yadollah Mehrabi; Golnar Radmand; Ali A Khadem Maboudi; Hamid R Jamaati; A Shahbazi; Seyed A Mohajerani; Seyed M R Hashemian
Journal:  Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci       Date:  2013-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.