OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to validate the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and 3 (SAPS 3), the Mortality Probability Models III (MPM(0)-III), and the Cancer Mortality Model (CMM) in patients with cancer admitted to several intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: Seven hundred and seventeen consecutive patients (solid tumors 93%; hematological malignancies 7%) included over a 2-month period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The main reasons for ICU admission were postoperative care (57%), sepsis (15%) and respiratory failure (10%). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 21 and 30%, respectively. When all 717 patients were evaluated, discrimination was superior for both SAPS II (AROC = 0.84) and SAPS 3 (AROC = 0.84) scores compared to CMM (AROC = 0.79) and MPM(0)-III (AROC = 0.71) scores (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Calibration was better using CMM and the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for South American countries (CSA). MPM(0)-III, SAPS II and standard SAPS 3 scores underestimated mortality (standardized mortality ratio, SMR > 1), while CMM tended to overestimation (SMR = 0.48). However, using the SAPS 3 for CSA resulted in more precise estimations of the probability of death [SMR = 1.02 (95% confidence interval = 0.87-1.19)]. Similar results were observed when scheduled surgical patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for CSA was found to be accurate in predicting outcomes in cancer patients requiring ICU admission.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to validate the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and 3 (SAPS 3), the Mortality Probability Models III (MPM(0)-III), and the Cancer Mortality Model (CMM) in patients with cancer admitted to several intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: Seven hundred and seventeen consecutive patients (solid tumors 93%; hematological malignancies 7%) included over a 2-month period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The main reasons for ICU admission were postoperative care (57%), sepsis (15%) and respiratory failure (10%). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 21 and 30%, respectively. When all 717 patients were evaluated, discrimination was superior for both SAPS II (AROC = 0.84) and SAPS 3 (AROC = 0.84) scores compared to CMM (AROC = 0.79) and MPM(0)-III (AROC = 0.71) scores (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Calibration was better using CMM and the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for South American countries (CSA). MPM(0)-III, SAPS II and standard SAPS 3 scores underestimated mortality (standardized mortality ratio, SMR > 1), while CMM tended to overestimation (SMR = 0.48). However, using the SAPS 3 for CSA resulted in more precise estimations of the probability of death [SMR = 1.02 (95% confidence interval = 0.87-1.19)]. Similar results were observed when scheduled surgical patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for CSA was found to be accurate in predicting outcomes in cancerpatients requiring ICU admission.
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
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
Authors: Dominique D Benoit; Koenraad H Vandewoude; Johan M Decruyenaere; Eric A Hoste; Francis A Colardyn Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Pieter O Depuydt; Dominique D Benoit; Carl D Roosens; Fritz C Offner; Lucien A Noens; Johan M Decruyenaere Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Fabio Silvio Taccone; Antonio A Artigas; Charles L Sprung; Rui Moreno; Yasser Sakr; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Frank Daniel Martos-Benítez; Andrés Soto-García; Anarelys Gutiérrez-Noyola Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: E Tabouret; C Boucard; R Devillier; M Barrie; S Boussen; D Autran; O Chinot; N Bruder Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 17.440
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