K Strand1, E Søreide, S Aardal, H Flaatten. 1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. stkr@sus.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) is the most widely used general severity scoring system in European intensive care medicine. Because its performance has been questioned in several external validation studies, SAPS 3 was recently released. To our knowledge, there are no published validation studies of SAPS II or SAPS 3 in the Scandinavian countries. We aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of SAPS II and SAPS 3 in a Norwegian intensive care unit (ICU) population. METHOD: Prospectively collected data from adult patients admitted to two general ICUs at two different hospitals in Norway were used. Probability of mortality was calculated using the SAPS 3 global equation (SAPS 3 G), the SAPS 3 Northern European equation (SAPS 3 NE), and the original SAPS II equation. Performance was assessed by the standardized mortality ratio (SMR), area under receiving operating characteristic, and the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C test. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred and sixty-two patients were included after excluding readmissions, and patients who were admitted after coronary surgery or burns. The SMRs were SAPS 3 G 0.71 (0.65, 0.78), SAPS 3 NE 0.74 (0.68, 0.81), and SAPS II 0.82 (0.75, 0.91). Discrimination was good in all systems. Only the SAPS 3 equations displayed satisfactory calibration, as measured by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. CONCLUSION: The performance of SAPS 3 was satisfactory, but not markedly better than SAPS II. Both systems considerably overestimated mortality and exhibited good discrimination, but only the SAPS 3 equations showed satisfactory calibration. Customization of these equations based on a larger cohort is recommended.
BACKGROUND: Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) is the most widely used general severity scoring system in European intensive care medicine. Because its performance has been questioned in several external validation studies, SAPS 3 was recently released. To our knowledge, there are no published validation studies of SAPS II or SAPS 3 in the Scandinavian countries. We aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of SAPS II and SAPS 3 in a Norwegian intensive care unit (ICU) population. METHOD: Prospectively collected data from adult patients admitted to two general ICUs at two different hospitals in Norway were used. Probability of mortality was calculated using the SAPS 3 global equation (SAPS 3 G), the SAPS 3 Northern European equation (SAPS 3 NE), and the original SAPS II equation. Performance was assessed by the standardized mortality ratio (SMR), area under receiving operating characteristic, and the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C test. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred and sixty-two patients were included after excluding readmissions, and patients who were admitted after coronary surgery or burns. The SMRs were SAPS 3 G 0.71 (0.65, 0.78), SAPS 3 NE 0.74 (0.68, 0.81), and SAPS II 0.82 (0.75, 0.91). Discrimination was good in all systems. Only the SAPS 3 equations displayed satisfactory calibration, as measured by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. CONCLUSION: The performance of SAPS 3 was satisfactory, but not markedly better than SAPS II. Both systems considerably overestimated mortality and exhibited good discrimination, but only the SAPS 3 equations showed satisfactory calibration. Customization of these equations based on a larger cohort is recommended.
Authors: Rebeccah M Brusca; Catherine E Simpson; Sarina K Sahetya; Zeba Noorain; Varshitha Tanykonda; R Scott Stephens; Dale M Needham; David N Hager Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Félix Alegre; Manuel Fortún Landecho; Ana Huerta; Nerea Fernández-Ros; Diego Martínez-Urbistondo; Nicolás García; Jorge Quiroga; Juan Felipe Lucena Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juan F Lucena; Félix Alegre; Diego Martinez-Urbistondo; Manuel F Landecho; Ana Huerta; Alberto García-Mouriz; Nicolás García; Jorge Quiroga Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.240