Tiffany Chan1, Michael S Bleszynski1, Andrzej K Buczkowski2. 1. Resident, Department of General Surgery, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada . 2. Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of the effectiveness of care and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients is dependent on predictive scoring models that calculate measures of disease severity and an associated likelihood of mortality. The APACHE scoring system is a logistic regression model incorporating physiologic and laboratory parameters. APACHE-IV is the most updated scoring system for ICU mortality prediction. However, APACHE scores may not accurately predict mortality in patients who require surgery for abdominal sepsis, whose trajectory is modulated by source control procedures. AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of APACHE-IV mortality prediction in a cohort of ICU patients with surgical abdominal sepsis (SABS) requiring emergent laparotomy for source control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a combined medical and surgical intensive care unit in a large urban Canadian tertiary care hospital. Retrospective review of 211 consecutive adult ICU admissions that fulfilled the 2012 ACCP/SCCM criteria for severe sepsis/septic shock due to abdominal source was performed. APACHE-IV score and predicted mortality rate (PMR) were calculated and evaluated using area under the ROC curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 28.4%. There was overestimation of PMR by the APACHE-IV model in the overall cohort with an absolute difference of 16.6% (relative difference 36.9%). APACHE-IV crudely distinguished between survivors and non-survivors, with a PMR of 40% vs. 59% (p<0.001). AUROC of the APACHE-IV score was 0.67, 95% CI (0.58, 0.76) while the AUROC for the PMR was 0.72, 95% CI (0.64, 0.80), indicating poor performance in this cohort. CONCLUSION: APACHE-IV has poor discrimination in SABS. Future research should explore disease-specific prediction models.
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of the effectiveness of care and clinical outcomes in critically illpatients is dependent on predictive scoring models that calculate measures of disease severity and an associated likelihood of mortality. The APACHE scoring system is a logistic regression model incorporating physiologic and laboratory parameters. APACHE-IV is the most updated scoring system for ICU mortality prediction. However, APACHE scores may not accurately predict mortality in patients who require surgery for abdominal sepsis, whose trajectory is modulated by source control procedures. AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of APACHE-IV mortality prediction in a cohort of ICU patients with surgical abdominal sepsis (SABS) requiring emergent laparotomy for source control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a combined medical and surgical intensive care unit in a large urban Canadian tertiary care hospital. Retrospective review of 211 consecutive adult ICU admissions that fulfilled the 2012 ACCP/SCCM criteria for severe sepsis/septic shock due to abdominal source was performed. APACHE-IV score and predicted mortality rate (PMR) were calculated and evaluated using area under the ROC curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 28.4%. There was overestimation of PMR by the APACHE-IV model in the overall cohort with an absolute difference of 16.6% (relative difference 36.9%). APACHE-IV crudely distinguished between survivors and non-survivors, with a PMR of 40% vs. 59% (p<0.001). AUROC of the APACHE-IV score was 0.67, 95% CI (0.58, 0.76) while the AUROC for the PMR was 0.72, 95% CI (0.64, 0.80), indicating poor performance in this cohort. CONCLUSION: APACHE-IV has poor discrimination in SABS. Future research should explore disease-specific prediction models.
Entities:
Keywords:
Critical care; Infection; Outcomes; Prognostic scoring; Surgery
Authors: Scott T Micek; Nareg Roubinian; Tim Heuring; Meghan Bode; Jennifer Williams; Courtney Harrison; Theresa Murphy; Donna Prentice; Brent E Ruoff; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Donald M Yealy; John A Kellum; David T Huang; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Francis Pike; Thomas Terndrup; Henry E Wang; Peter C Hou; Frank LoVecchio; Michael R Filbin; Nathan I Shapiro; Derek C Angus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aleksandra Leligdowicz; Peter M Dodek; Monica Norena; Hubert Wong; Aseem Kumar; Anand Kumar Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ricard Ferrer; Antonio Artigas; Mitchell M Levy; Jesús Blanco; Gumersindo González-Díaz; José Garnacho-Montero; Jordi Ibáñez; Eduardo Palencia; Manuel Quintana; María Victoria de la Torre-Prados Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matti Tolonen; Federico Coccolini; Luca Ansaloni; Massimo Sartelli; Derek J Roberts; Jessica L McKee; Ari Leppaniemi; Christopher J Doig; Fausto Catena; Timothy Fabian; Craig N Jenne; Osvaldo Chiara; Paul Kubes; Yoram Kluger; Gustavo P Fraga; Bruno M Pereira; Jose J Diaz; Michael Sugrue; Ernest E Moore; Jianan Ren; Chad G Ball; Raul Coimbra; Elijah Dixon; Walter Biffl; Anthony MacLean; Paul B McBeth; Juan G Posadas-Calleja; Salomone Di Saverio; Jimmy Xiao; Andrew W Kirkpatrick Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 5.469