Literature DB >> 31529462

APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial.

Anna K Hansted1, Morten H Møller2, Ann M Møller1, Morten Vester-Andersen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Accurate identification of high-risk patients is important. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score needs to be validated in a larger heterogeneous population before implementation. We aimed to assess the predictive value of the APACHE II score in emergency abdominal surgical patients. Furthermore, we compared the APACHE II score with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).
METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery screened for enrolment in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. The APACHE II score was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) statistics. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and admission to the intensive care unit.
RESULTS: We included a total of 885 patients. All-cause 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 90-day mortality was 8.9%, and a total of 7.9% of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the APACHE II score was 0.72 (0.65-0.80) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (0.64-0.76) for 90-day mortality and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for admission to the intensive care unit. The CCI performed better in prediction of 90-day mortality (P = .04). All other results for the ASA score and CCI were comparable with the APACHE II score.
CONCLUSION: The APACHE II score predicted mortality moderately and admission to intensive care unit poorly in emergency abdominal surgical patients.
© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICU admission; emergency surgery; general surgery; laparotomy; mortality; prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31529462     DOI: 10.1111/aas.13476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-5172            Impact factor:   2.105


  4 in total

Review 1.  Interhospital transfer (IHT) in emergency general surgery patients (EGS): A scoping review.

Authors:  Ryan D Emanuelson; Sarah J Brown; Paula M Termuhlen
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-21

Review 2.  Emergency Surgery Score as an Effective Risk Stratification Tool for Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgeries: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Pravin Saxena; Abhijit Nair
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-23

3.  The effect of aggressive management of intraoperative body temperature on postoperative APACHE II score and prognosis in high-risk patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Wangyu Li; Zhouting Hu; Jiayan Liu; Yuxin Yuan; Kai Li
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 3.005

4.  Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial).

Authors:  Kaitlin McArthur; Cassandra Krause; Eugenia Kwon; Xian Luo-Owen; Meghan Cochran-Yu; Lourdes Swentek; Sigrid Burruss; David Turay; Chloe Krasnoff; Areg Grigorian; Jeffry Nahmias; Ahsan Butt; Adam Gutierrez; Aimee LaRiccia; Michelle Kincaid; Michele N Fiorentino; Nina Glass; Samantha Toscano; Eric Ley; Sarah R Lombardo; Oscar D Guillamondegui; James M Bardes; Connie DeLa'O; Salina M Wydo; Kyle Leneweaver; Nicholas T Duletzke; Jade Nunez; Simon Moradian; Joseph Posluszny; Leon Naar; Haytham Kaafarani; Heidi Kemmer; Mark J Lieser; Alexa Dorricott; Grace Chang; Zoltan Nemeth; Kaushik Mukherjee
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.697

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.