Mark T Keegan1, Ognjen Gajic2, Bekele Afessa2. 1. Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC) group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: keegan.mark@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care (METRIC) group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few comparisons among the most recent versions of the major adult ICU prognostic systems (APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] 3, Mortality Probability Model [MPM]0III). Only MPM0III includes resuscitation status as a predictor. METHODS: We assessed the discrimination, calibration, and overall performance of the models in 2,596 patients in three ICUs at our tertiary referral center in 2006. For APACHE and SAPS, the analyses were repeated with and without inclusion of resuscitation status as a predictor variable. RESULTS: Of the 2,596 patients studied, 283 (10.9%) died before hospital discharge. The areas under the curve (95% CI) of the models for prediction of hospital mortality were 0.868 (0.854-0.880), 0.861 (0.847-0.874), 0.801 (0.785-0.816), and 0.721 (0.704-0.738) for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics for the models were 33.7, 31.0, 36.6, and 21.8 for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. Each of the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics generated P values < .05, indicating poor calibration. Brier scores for the models were 0.0771, 0.0749, 0.0890, and 0.0932, respectively. There were no significant differences between the discriminative ability or the calibration of APACHE or SAPS with and without “do not resuscitate” status. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE III and IV had similar discriminatory capability and both were better than SAPS 3, which was better than MPM0III. The calibrations of the models studied were poor. Overall, models with more predictor variables performed better than those with fewer. The addition of resuscitation status did not improve APACHE III or IV or SAPS 3 prediction.
BACKGROUND: There are few comparisons among the most recent versions of the major adult ICU prognostic systems (APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] 3, Mortality Probability Model [MPM]0III). Only MPM0III includes resuscitation status as a predictor. METHODS: We assessed the discrimination, calibration, and overall performance of the models in 2,596 patients in three ICUs at our tertiary referral center in 2006. For APACHE and SAPS, the analyses were repeated with and without inclusion of resuscitation status as a predictor variable. RESULTS: Of the 2,596 patients studied, 283 (10.9%) died before hospital discharge. The areas under the curve (95% CI) of the models for prediction of hospital mortality were 0.868 (0.854-0.880), 0.861 (0.847-0.874), 0.801 (0.785-0.816), and 0.721 (0.704-0.738) for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics for the models were 33.7, 31.0, 36.6, and 21.8 for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. Each of the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics generated P values < .05, indicating poor calibration. Brier scores for the models were 0.0771, 0.0749, 0.0890, and 0.0932, respectively. There were no significant differences between the discriminative ability or the calibration of APACHE or SAPS with and without “do not resuscitate” status. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE III and IV had similar discriminatory capability and both were better than SAPS 3, which was better than MPM0III. The calibrations of the models studied were poor. Overall, models with more predictor variables performed better than those with fewer. The addition of resuscitation status did not improve APACHE III or IV or SAPS 3 prediction.
Authors: Derek C Angus; Andrew F Shorr; Alan White; Tony T Dremsizov; Robert J Schmitz; Mark A Kelley Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Deborah J Cook; Richard J Wall; Derek C Angus; Julian Bion; Robert Kacmarek; Sandra L Kane-Gill; Karin T Kirchhoff; Mitchell Levy; Pamela H Mitchell; Rui Moreno; Peter Pronovost; Kathleen Puntillo Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: P G Metnitz; A Valentin; H Vesely; C Alberti; T Lang; K Lenz; H Steltzer; M Hiesmayr Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bekele Afessa; Mark T Keegan; Rolf D Hubmayr; James M Naessens; Ognjen Gajic; Kirsten Hall Long; Steve G Peters Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Rui P Moreno; Philipp G H Metnitz; 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
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
Authors: Rodrigo Octavio Deliberato; Ary Serpa Neto; Matthieu Komorowski; David J Stone; Stephanie Q Ko; Lucas Bulgarelli; Carolina Rodrigues Ponzoni; Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves; Leo Anthony Celi; Alistair E W Johnson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Judith E Nelson; Kusum S Mathews; David E Weissman; Karen J Brasel; Margaret Campbell; J Randall Curtis; Jennifer A Frontera; Michelle Gabriel; Ross M Hays; Anne C Mosenthal; Colleen Mulkerin; Kathleen A Puntillo; Daniel E Ray; Stefanie P Weiss; Rick Bassett; Renee D Boss; Dana R Lustbader Journal: Chest Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jesse D Raffa; Alistair E W Johnson; Zach O'Brien; Tom J Pollard; Roger G Mark; Leo A Celi; David Pilcher; Omar Badawi Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 9.296