PubMed · 10667547
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M A Belfort. 2000. Scoring systems for eclampsia.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200001000-00057
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
HYPOTHESES: The APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score used as an intensive care unit (ICU) admission score in emergency surgical patients is not independent of the effects of treatment and might lead to considerable bias in the comparability of defined groups of patients and in the evaluation of treatment policies. Postoperative monitoring with the APACHE II score is clinically irrelevant. DESIGN: Inception cohort study. SETTING: Secondary referral center. PATIENTS: Eighty-five consecutive emergency surgical patients admitted to the surgical ICU in 1999. The APACHE II score was calculated before surgery; after admission to the ICU; and on postoperative days 3, 7, and 10. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: APACHE II scores and predicted and observed mortality rates. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD APACHE II score of 24.2 +/- 8.3 at admission to the ICU was approximately 36% greater than the initial APACHE II score of 17.8 +/- 7.7, a difference that was highly statistically significant (P<.001). The overall mortality of 32% favorably corresponds with the predicted mortality of 34% according to the initial APACHE II score. However, the predicted mortality of 50% according to the APACHE II score at admission to the ICU was significantly different from the observed mortality rate (P =.02). In 40 long-term patients (>/=10 days in the ICU), the difference between the APACHE II scores of survivors and patients who died was statistically significant on day 10 (P =.04). CONCLUSIONS: For risk stratification in emergency surgical patients, it is essential to measure the APACHE II score before surgical treatment. Longitudinal APACHE II scoring reveals continuous improvement of the score in surviving patients but has no therapeutic relevance in the individual patient.
HYPOTHESIS: Since the early 1990s, the laparoscopic technique has been increasingly used for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. It is important to validate a risk scoring system that can stratify patients into various risk groups before comparing the treatment outcome of laparoscopic repair against that of conventional open surgery. The scoring system should be able to predict the likelihood of mortality and morbidity. Boey score and APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score may be of use in patient stratification. DESIGN: Retrospective review of relevant case notes by one reviewer. SETTING: A teaching hospital treating 0. 5 million to 1 million patients during the study period. PATIENTS: Patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcer between January 1989 and December 1998. Patients treated conservatively were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and postoperative complications (morbidity). RESULTS: A total of 436 patients (365 male and 71 female) with a mean +/- SD age of 51.5 +/- 18.3 years (range, 14-92 years) were studied. Duodenal perforation accounted for 344 (78.9%) of 436 cases. The mortality rate was 7.8% (34/436), and 89 patients had postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that only the APACHE II score predicted both mortality and morbidity. Although the Boey score predicted mortality, it failed to predict morbidity. However, the Boey score predicted the chance of conversion in patients undergoing laparoscopic repair. CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE II score may be a useful tool for stratifying patients into various risk groups, and the Boey score might select appropriate patients for laparoscopic repair.
Both propofol and midazolam are known to inhibit immune function. The aim of this study was to investigate cytokine production in critically ill surgical patients as early markers of immune response to prolonged infusion of propofol and midazolam. The study enrolled 40 elective patients who were to receive long-term sedation for more than 2 days. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two equally sized groups. Central venous blood samples for measurement of interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) were drawn prior to the start and after 48 h of infusion. After 48 h, propofol caused significant increases in IL-1beta (24%), IL-6 (23%) and TNF-alpha (4.8 times) levels, while midazolam caused significant decreases in IL-1beta (21%), IL-6 (21%) and TNF-alpha (19%). Both agents caused significant decreases in IL-8 levels (propofol: 30%, midazolam: 48%, p < 0.05). Propofol caused significant decreases in IL-2 levels (68%, p < 0.001) but increases in IFN-gamma (30%, p < 0.05), whereas there was no significant change with midazolam compared with the pre-infusion level. In conclusion, during 48 h of continuous infusion, propofol stimulated, while midazolam suppressed, the production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha, and both caused suppression of IL-8 production. Propofol inhibited IL-2 production and stimulated IFN-gamma production, whereas midazolam failed to do so. Therefore, sedative agents may have clinical implications in high-risk and immunocompromised patients.