BACKGROUND: This study compared the predictive accuracy of four scoring systems, namely Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and Mortality in Emergency Department (MEDS), for estimating prognosis in patients with necrotizing fasciitis. METHODS: Seventy-four patients who presented with necrotizing fasciitis were retrospectively examined. The ability of the scoring systems to predict mortality was assessed by comparing the estimated mortality rates in mortality groups (survivors/non-survivors), and mortality rates among survivors and non-survivors with an estimated mortality of >10%, 30%, and 50% in the scoring systems were compared in pairs. RESULTS: Estimated mortality rates in the survivor and non-survivor groups were different for all the scoring systems. The estimated mortality rates of APACHE II and SAPS II were much closer to the actual mortality rates than the other two scoring systems. When the predicted mortality rates were analyzed as limits for a mortality risk, the predicted mortality rate by APACHE II was superior to that by SAPS II. CONCLUSION: The studied scoring systems had significantly higher predicted mortality rates in non-survivors than in survivors; however, they all underestimated the mortality rate. APACHE II and SAPS II were relatively superior for estimating mortality in patients with necrotizing fasciitis. APACHE II rather than the other scoring systems should be currently used.
BACKGROUND: This study compared the predictive accuracy of four scoring systems, namely Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and Mortality in Emergency Department (MEDS), for estimating prognosis in patients with necrotizing fasciitis. METHODS: Seventy-four patients who presented with necrotizing fasciitis were retrospectively examined. The ability of the scoring systems to predict mortality was assessed by comparing the estimated mortality rates in mortality groups (survivors/non-survivors), and mortality rates among survivors and non-survivors with an estimated mortality of >10%, 30%, and 50% in the scoring systems were compared in pairs. RESULTS: Estimated mortality rates in the survivor and non-survivor groups were different for all the scoring systems. The estimated mortality rates of APACHE II and SAPS II were much closer to the actual mortality rates than the other two scoring systems. When the predicted mortality rates were analyzed as limits for a mortality risk, the predicted mortality rate by APACHE II was superior to that by SAPS II. CONCLUSION: The studied scoring systems had significantly higher predicted mortality rates in non-survivors than in survivors; however, they all underestimated the mortality rate. APACHE II and SAPS II were relatively superior for estimating mortality in patients with necrotizing fasciitis. APACHE II rather than the other scoring systems should be currently used.