OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate and compare the performance of serum paraquat level, severity index of paraquat poisoning (SIPP), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), modified Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (MSAPS II), and modified Expanded Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (MSAPS IIe) calculated immediately after arrival on emergency department (ED) for assessing the mortality of acute paraquat poisoning. METHODS: A retrospective study design was employed with the main outcome measure being mortality from year 2001 to 2010. MSAPS II and MSAPS IIe were employed in that assessment of the 24-hour urine output were not included. The performance of APACHE II, MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe, serum paraquat level and SIPP for prediction of mortality in acute paraquat poisoning were compared. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled in the study. The area under the ROC curve for APACHE II (0.800) was statistically lower than those for MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe, SIPP and serum paraquat (0.879, 0.893, 0.924,and 0.951, respectively). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test C statistic revealed that APACHE II, MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe and serum paraquat level showed good calibrations (chi-square 8.477 and p = 0.388, chi-square 4.614 and p = 0.798, chi-squared 5.301 and p = 0.725, chi-squared 1.009 and p = 0.985 respectively), but poor calibration for SIPP (chi-square 21.293 and p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Serum paraquat level is still the most reliable prognosis factor in acute paraquat poisoning. But MSAPS II or MSAPS IIe calculated immediately after arrival on ED may be helpful to predict mortality in acute paraquat poisoning especially when hospital has no facility to measure serum paraquat level.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate and compare the performance of serum paraquat level, severity index of paraquat poisoning (SIPP), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), modified Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (MSAPS II), and modified Expanded Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (MSAPS IIe) calculated immediately after arrival on emergency department (ED) for assessing the mortality of acute paraquat poisoning. METHODS: A retrospective study design was employed with the main outcome measure being mortality from year 2001 to 2010. MSAPS II and MSAPS IIe were employed in that assessment of the 24-hour urine output were not included. The performance of APACHE II, MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe, serum paraquat level and SIPP for prediction of mortality in acute paraquat poisoning were compared. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled in the study. The area under the ROC curve for APACHE II (0.800) was statistically lower than those for MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe, SIPP and serum paraquat (0.879, 0.893, 0.924,and 0.951, respectively). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test C statistic revealed that APACHE II, MSAPS II, MSAPS IIe and serum paraquat level showed good calibrations (chi-square 8.477 and p = 0.388, chi-square 4.614 and p = 0.798, chi-squared 5.301 and p = 0.725, chi-squared 1.009 and p = 0.985 respectively), but poor calibration for SIPP (chi-square 21.293 and p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Serum paraquat level is still the most reliable prognosis factor in acute paraquat poisoning. But MSAPS II or MSAPS IIe calculated immediately after arrival on ED may be helpful to predict mortality in acute paraquat poisoning especially when hospital has no facility to measure serum paraquat level.