Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “APACHE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

APACHE II scoring system on a general intensive care unit: audit of daily APACHE II scores and 6-month survival of 691 patients admitted to a general intensive care unit between May 1990 and December 1991.

In this paper we present a detailed analysis of the use of the APACHE II (acute physiological and chronic health evaluation) scoring system on all of the patients admitted to the general intensive care unit at the Bristol Royal Infirmary over a 20-month period. The 6-month survival of 691 adult medical and surgical patients following intensive care was recorded and this data was analysed with admission and daily APACHE II scores using a relational database. Our data confirms the relationship between admission APACHE II scores and outcome, with mean scores decreasing as duration of survival increases. We also demonstrate that the best day one scores are approximately 50% less than the admission score, irrespective of outcome, indicating the benefit of intensive care. By contrast, however, the scores on day one have either not improved or have worsened since admission, reflecting the importance of the pre-morbid health status of the patient in determining outcome from intensive care.

England↗
PubMed1991

Utilizing findings from the APACHE III research to develop operational information system for the ICU--the APACHE III ICU Management System.

The APACHE III data base reflects the disease, physiologic status, and outcome data from 17,400 ICU patients at 40 hospitals, 26 of which were randomly selected from representative geographic regions, bed size, and teaching status. This provides a nationally representative standard for measuring several important aspects of ICU performance. Results from the study have now been used to develop an automated information system to provide real time information about expected ICU patient outcome, length of stay, production cost, and ICU performance. The information system provides several new capabilities to ICU clinicians, clinic, and hospital administrators. Among the system's capabilities are: the ability to compare local ICU performance against predetermined criteria; the ability to forecast nursing requirements; and, the ability to make both individual and group patient outcome predictions. The system also provides improved administrative support by tracking ICU charges at the point of origin and reduces staff workload eliminating the requirement for several manually maintained logs and patient lists. APACHE III has the capability to electronically interface with and utilize data already captured in existing hospital information systems, automated laboratory information systems, and patient monitoring systems. APACHE III will also be completely integrated with several CIS vendors' products.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed2002

Integration of APACHE II and III scoring systems in extremely high risk patients with acute renal failure treated by dialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute physiology, age, chronic health evaluation II and III (APACHE II and III) scoring systems obtained on the day of the initiation of dialysis were compared the mortality rate among in critically ill patients with acute renal failure requiring dialysis. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Intensive care units in a tertiary care university hospital in Taiwan. PATIENTS: 100 patients diagnosed with acute renal failure and requiring dialysis were admitted to intensive care units from January 1997 through December 1998. INTERVENTIONS: Information deemed necessary to compute the APACHE II and APACHE III score on the day of dialysis initiation was collected. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The overall hospital mortality rate was 71%. The relationship between APACHE II and APACHE III scores for patients was linear and correlated significantly in all subgroups. Goodness-of-fit was good for APACHE II and APACHE III models. Both reported good areas under receiver operating characteristic curve. Death in most patients was related to a higher APACHE II or APACHE III score during the 24 h immediately preceding the initiation of acute hemodialysis. Our results indicated a significant rise in mortality rates associated with higher APACHE II or III scores among all patients. Although less than 60%, the mortality rates markedly increased extent when APACHE II score of 24 or higher or APACHE III score above 90 had mortality rates exceeding 85%. CONCLUSION: Both predictive models demonstrated a similar degree of overall goodness-of-fit. Although APACHE II showed better calibration, APACHE III was better in terms of discrimination. The prediction accuracy of the APACHE II score for extremely high-risk patients is further enhanced by specific utility of APACHE III scoring as a second prediction model when the AII score is 24 or higher.

APACHE↗
PubMed1999

Prediction of outcome in intensive care unit trauma patients: a multicenter study of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a multicenter study to validate the accuracy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II system, APACHE III system, Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology, and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system for prediction of mortality in ICU trauma patient admissions. METHODS: The study population consisted of retrospectively identified, consecutive ICU trauma admissions (n = 2,414) from six Level I trauma centers. Probabilities of death were calculated by using logistic regression analysis. The predictive power of each system was evaluated by using decision matrix analysis to compare observed and predicted outcomes with a decision criterion of 0.50 for risk of hospital death. The Youden Index (YI) was used to compare the proportion of patients correctly classified by each system. Measures of model calibration were based on goodness-of-fit testing (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic less than 15.5) and model discrimination were based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Overall, APACHE II (sensitivity, 38%; specificity, 99%; YI, 37%; H-L statistic, 92.6; AUC, 0.87) and TRISS (sensitivity, 52%; specificity, 94%; YI, 46%; H-L statistic, 228.1; AUC, 0.82) were poor predictors of aggregate mortality, because they did not meet the acceptable thresholds for both model calibration and discrimination. APACHE III (sensitivity, 60%; specificity, 98%; YI, 58%; H-L statistic, 7.0; AUC, 0.89) was comparable to the 24-hour ICU point system (sensitivity, 51%; specificity, 98%; YI, 50%; H-L statistic, 14.7; AUC, 0.89) with both systems showing strong agreement between the observed and predicted outcomes based on acceptable thresholds for both model calibration and discrimination. The APACHE III system significantly improved upon APACHE II for estimating risk of death in ICU trauma patients (p < 0.001). Compared with the overall performance, for the subset of patients with nonoperative head trauma, the percentage correctly classified was decreased to 46% for APACHE II; increased to 71% for APACHE III (p < 0.001 vs. APACHE II); increased to 59% for TRISS; and increased to 62% for 24-hour ICU points. For operative head trauma, the percentage correctly classified was increased to 60% for APACHE II; increased to 61% for APACHE III; decreased to 43% for TRISS (p < 0.004 vs. APACHE III); and increased to 54% for 24-hour ICU points. For patients without head injuries, all of the systems were unreliable and considerably underestimated the risk of death. The percentage of nonoperative and operative patients without head trauma who were correctly classified was decreased, respectively, to 26% and 30% for APACHE II; 33% and 29% for APACHE III; 33% and 19% for TRISS; 20% and 23% for 24-hour ICU points. CONCLUSION: For the overall estimation of aggregate ICU mortality, the APACHE III system was the most reliable; however, performance was most accurate for subsets of patients with head trauma. The 24-hour ICU point system also demonstrated acceptable overall performance with improved performance for patients with head trauma. Overall, APACHE II and TRISS did not meet acceptable thresholds of performance. When estimating ICU mortality for subsets of patients without head trauma, none of these systems had an acceptable level of performance. Further multicenter studies aimed at developing better outcome prediction models for patients without head injuries are warranted, which would allow trauma care providers to set uniform standards for judging institutional performance.

APACHE↗
PubMed1996

Development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critically ill patients with perforated viscus. Predictive value of APACHE severity scoring.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether scoring on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III at admission can predict the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and mortality in critically ill surgical patients. DESIGN: Prospective, inception-cohort study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit of an urban, tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred fourteen critically ill patients with surgically treated perforated gastrointestinal viscus. INTERVENTIONS: Calculation of APACHE II and APACHE III scores 24 hours after admission to the surgical intensive care unit and serial quantitation of organ dysfunction for the duration of critical care according to two different predefined scoring systems. Patients were stratified by survival, the development of organ dysfunction, and colon vs noncolonic perforation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital mortality, length of stay in the surgical intensive care unit, and the development of organ dysfunction or overt organ failure. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SEM) APACHE II and APACHE III scores were 17.4 +/- 0.6 (range, 6 to 37) and 59.0 +/- 2.2 (range, 15 to 141), respectively. The incidence of organ dysfunction was 73% (64% in survivors). All severity scores were identical for colon perforation and noncolonic perforation subgroups. Nonsurvivors invariably had organ dysfunction. Overall length of stay in the intensive care unit was 12.0 +/- 1.6 days (8.7 +/- 1.2 days for survivors and 22.7 +/- 5.0 days for nonsurvivors). The APACHE scores and organ dysfunction or failure scores were significantly higher in nonsurvivors, and APACHE scores were higher in survivors with organ dysfunction than in those without it. Significant linear relationships were identified for APACHE II vs APACHE III scores (R2 = .66) and for all four combinations of APACHE scores and organ dysfunction or failure scores (R2 = .43 to .52). By multivariate analysis of variance, independent predictors of organ dysfunction or failure were APACHE III, increased age, and a prolonged stay in the surgical intensive care unit, but not the type of perforation. Neither APACHE II or APACHE III predicted mortality independently. CONCLUSIONS: The development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome correlated with higher APACHE III scores but was independent of the type of perforation. Only the development of overt multiple organ failure predicted death. Combined use of APACHE III and the multiple organ dysfunction score provides improved prediction of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, but further enhancements are needed before prediction of outcome in individual patients is reliable.

APACHE↗
PubMed1999

[Intensive care medicine for elderly patients: how applicable are the APACHE III and III score systems?].

OBJECTIVE: Scores like APACHE (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation) were evaluated for unselected intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Can they also be used for risk stratification and quality assurance in selected subgroups like elderly patients? METHODS: Over a 3-year period data of all admissions of a 12 bed interdisciplinary ICU were collected. APACHE II and III scores and probabilities of hospital deaths were compared with observed outcomes. The discriminatory power was evaluated by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was analyzed with standardized mortality ratios (SMR) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic. RESULTS: Of 3382 admissions due to exclusion criteria, 2795 patients were analyzed, 1396 (49.9%) of these were > or = 65 years, mean age 75 (65-99) years. 62.5% were non-operative, 37.5% postoperative admissions, 35% after emergency operations. ICU mortality was 11.7%, hospital mortality 25.1%. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 for APACHE II and 0.79 for APACHE III (whole collective 0.83 and 0.85, respectively). The SMR was 1.17 for APACHE II and 1.23 for APACHE III compared with 1.06 and 1.22 for all patients, respectively. Calibration for elderly patients was insufficient for APACHE II (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square = 19, p < 0.025) as well as for APACHE III (chi-square = 41, p < 0.001), while it was good for all patients for APACHE II (chi-square = 12, p > 0.1) but not so for APACHE III (chi-square = 48, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: APACHE II and III both show good discrimination for elderly patients although a little inferior than for all patients. Both scores can be used for risk stratification of elderly ICU patients. Mortality prognosis is not sufficient for geriatric patients although APACHE II calibrates well for all. Application of these scores for quality assurance in selected subgroups like elderly patients cannot be recommended based on these data.

APACHE↗
PubMed1995

Evaluation of predictive ability of APACHE II system and hospital outcome in Canadian intensive care unit patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system to predict patient outcome in two Canadian intensive care units (ICUs). To compare the severity of illness and outcome of Canadian ICU patients with existing United States data. DESIGN: Prospective data collection on 1,724 Canadian ICU patients for validation of the APACHE II system. Comparison of the outcome of Canadian ICU patients to retrospective United States data on 4,087 patients from the 1985 APACHE II multicenter study. SETTING: Canadian data from two university teaching hospital ICUs. United States data from 13 ICUs, ten of which were in university teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to adult medical/surgical ICUs. Coronary care unit, neurosurgical and cardiac surgery patients were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each patient, demographic data, diagnosis, APACHE II score and hospital survival data were collected. The predicted risk of death was calculated for each patient using the APACHE II risk of death equation. The accuracy in outcome prediction of the APACHE II system was assessed by means of the receiver operating characteristic curve, 2 x 2 decision matrices and linear regression analysis. The severity of illness and hospital mortality for the Canadian patients was compared with that of United States patients from the 1985 APACHE II multicenter study. In 1,724 Canadian ICU patients, the mean +/- SEM APACHE II score was 16.5 +/- 0.2. The predicted death rate was 24.7% and the observed death rate was 24.8%. Using receiver operating curve analysis, good correlation was found between predicted outcome and observed outcome. The area under the curve was 0.86. From the 2 x 2 decision matrix constructed for a predicted risk of death of 0.5, 83% of patients were correctly classified. The sensitivity was 50.9% and the specificity was 93.6%. When observed death rate was plotted against predicted death rate, linear regression analysis gave an r2 of .99. Canadian patients had a higher death rate and APACHE II score than the United States patients. After controlling for severity of illness using the APACHE II score, the Canadian and United States death rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the APACHE II system in predicting group outcome is validated in this Canadian ICU population by receiver operating characteristic curve, 2 x 2 decision matrices and linear regression analysis. The Canadian patients had a higher overall hospital death rate than the United States patients. After controlling for severity of illness using APACHE II scores, the hospital death rate was comparable between the Canadian and United States patients.

APACHE↗
PubMed1995

Comparison of APACHE III, II and the Glasgow Coma Scale for prediction of mortality in a neurosurgical intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the efficacy of predicting power for hospital mortality of three different scoring systems in a neurosurgical intensive care unit (NICU). SETTING: An eight-bed NICU in a 1,270-bed medical centre (Taichung Veterans General Hospital). SUBJECTS: Two hundred patients with head injury, brain tumour, hypertensive intracerebral haemorrhage, rupture of aneurysm or arteriovenous malformation, or other categories were included in our study in a consecutive period of 14 months. Patients less than 14 years old were not included. DESIGN: On the first day of admission, data were collected from each patient to compute the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health (APACHE) II and III, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Hospital mortality was defined as when death occurred before discharge from hospital. INTERVENTIONS: none. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity and correct prediction outcomes were measured by logistic regression in three scoring systems. The Youden index was also obtained. The best cutoff point in each scoring system was determined by logistic regression or by the Youden index. Data obtained by logistic regression were compared by McNemar's test. The differences in Youden index were calculated by the Student's t-test. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was computed and the area of each scoring system was then compared by the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test. MAIN RESULTS: The correct prediction of outcome was 85.5% in APACHE III, 77.5% in APACHE II and 75.0% in GCS. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.892 in APACHE III, 0.826 in APACHE II and 0.868 in GCS. For the prediction of dead patients at the best cutoff point, APACHE III and GCS were better than APACHE II, (both p < 0.01 respectively). For the prediction of alive patients at the best cutoff point, APACHE III was better than GCS and APACHE II (p < 0.01 respectively). CONCLUSION: The APACHE III system seems to be the most reliable. The results reveal that the APACHE III system is better in predicting power for hospital mortality than either the GCS or APACHE II systems in our NICU patients.

APACHE↗
PubMed2004

Performance evaluation of APACHE II score for an Indian patient with respiratory problems.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Realising the utility of scoring systems in mortality prediction of critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), studies worldwide have expressed a need to validate the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score for databases of respective countries. Literature available in this area in the Indian context is scanty. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of APACHE II score in prediction of mortality risk, as well as in determination of model validity in critically ill Indian patients with respiratory problems. METHODS: The study was prospectively carried out over 18 months at respiratory ICU of a tertiary Institute in New Delhi, which admitted consecutive medical (with lung ailments) and surgical (who had undergone any elective thoracic surgical procedure under general anaesthesia) patients. Based on chief indication of ICU admission, the medical patients were further divided into sub-groups I (respiratory) and II (non-respiratory). APACHE II points were assigned to all patients for calculating their individual predicted risks of mortality. Standard mortality ratio (SMR) was computed with 95 per cent confidence intervals (CI). Calibration of model was analysed by calculating Lemeshow and Hosmer goodness of fit X(2) statistic and by plotting calibration curve, whereas discrimination was evaluated by calculating area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Of the 393 consecutive patients admitted to respiratory ICU during the study period, 63 were left out on account of exclusion criteria. Mean APACHE II score of the remaining 330 patients was 12.87+/-8.25 and range from 1 to 47. There were 287 (87%) survivors and 43 (13%) non-survivors, whose mean APACHE II scores, being respectively 11.34+/-6.75 (range 1-37) and 23.09+/-10.01 (range 5-47), were significantly different (P<0.01). The study had a predicted mortality of 7.9 per cent and an SMR value of 1.65 (95% CI from 0.4 to 3.0). Mean APACHE II score of those having medical ailments was significantly higher (P<0.01) than surgical patients. The non-respiratory sub-group had a significantly higher (P<0.01) mean APACHE II score than respiratory sub-group. 59 per cent of patients did not get APACHE II points owing to being <45 yr of age. In addition, against 10 immunocompromised patients, 77 others did not get APACHE II points despite having apparently compromised immunity due to co-existence of tuberculosis (TB), diabetes mellitus, dual pathologies or past history of anti-TB treatment. Observed and predicted mortality rose with 5-point APACHE II score, but did not correlate for patients of any comparable group. Average ICU stay of 16 days for those with medical disease was significantly longer (P<0.01) than 9.5 days for surgical patients. APACHE II scoring system showed a poor calibration and discrimination ability for Indian respiratory patients. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSION: Despite the rise in observed and predicted mortality with 5-point APACHE II score, predicted mortality did not correlate with observed mortality for critically ill patients admitted to an Indian respiratory ICU. The scoring system also showed a poor calibration as well as discrimination. The model may be more useful for Indian patients by lowering down the cut-off value in allotment of age points and by awarding the weightage to factor like co-existing immunocompromised state.

APACHE↗
PubMed2006

APACHE system is better than Ranson system in the prediction of severity of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that addition of obesity score to the APACHE-II system can lead to more accurate prediction of severity of acute pancreatitis. However there is scanty information on the usefulness of the combined APACHE-O scoring system in Asian patients. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of Ranson, APACHE-II and APACHE-O systems in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis in a local Chinese population. METHODS: One hundred and one consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis were prospectively studied. Body mass index (BMI) was measured on admission. Ranson score, APACHE-II and APACHE-O scores were recorded on admission and at 48 hours. By adopting the cut-off levels and definitions advocated in the Atlanta consensus for severe disease, the diagnostic accuracy of the three scoring systems was compared by the area under the curve (AUC) under the receiver operator characteristic curve. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients, 12 (11.9%) patients suffered from severe pancreatitis. Obesity was uncommon and only two patients (2.0%) had BMI>30. Eighty-two (81.2%) patients were normal weight (BMI< or =25) whereas 17 (16.8%) were overweight (BMI 25-30). Overweight or obesity (BMI>25) was not associated with severe pancreatitis (P=0.40). The AUC for admission scores of Ranson, APACHE-II, and APACHE-O systems was 0.549, 0.904 and 0.904, respectively. The AUC for 48-hour scores of Ranson, APACHE-II and APACHE-O systems was 0.808, 0.955 and 0.951, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE-II scoring system is more accurate than the Ranson scoring system of the prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis. Addition of obesity score does not significantly improve the predictive accuracy of the APACHE-II system in our local population with a low prevalence of obesity.

APACHE↗
PubMed2001

Risk stratification in emergency surgical patients: is the APACHE II score a reliable marker of physiological impairment?

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.

APACHE↗
PubMed2004

The use of APACHE II prognostic system in difficult-to-wean patients after long-term mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To examine the calibration of the prognostic system Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Score (APACHE II) regarding hospital mortality and predicting weaning outcome after long-term mechanical ventilation of the lungs. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study performed in a respiratory intensive care unit including 246 patients whose lungs were ventilated for 42.1+/-37.8 (median 30) days in the referring hospital. APACHE II (24 h after admission to our respiratory intensive care unit) and the cause of respiratory failure, underlying disease, prior duration of mechanical ventilation and gender were recorded. The predictive power was evaluated with sensitivity and specificity for different cut-off points and summarized in a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: No difference was found between survivors (APACHE II 16.0+/-4.3) and non-survivors (APACHE II 16.9+/-5.1). In a mean time of 8.0+/-10.3 days, 146 patients (59.3%) were successfully weaned (APACHE II 15.2+/-3.5). One-hundred patients (40.7%) were considered unweanable (APACHE II 17.7+/-5.3). Recalibration of APACHE II to predict weaning failure was possible, resulting in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.638. Furthermore the AUC improved to 0.723 by changing the weights of selected APACHE items and introducing external factors. Diagnostic accuracy fell from group with mechanical ventilation < or =25 days (AUC 0.770) to group with mechanical ventilation >50 days (AUC 0.517). CONCLUSIONS: APACHE II did not predict hospital mortality after long-term mechanical ventilation of the lungs. Not the original APACHE II but a recalibrated and adapted APACHE II can be useful to predict weaning outcome in patients with less than 25 days of prior lung ventilation.

APACHE↗
PubMed1996

A comparison of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and the Trauma-Injury Severity Score (TRISS) for outcome assessment in intensive care unit trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) system and Trauma-Injury Severity Scoring (TRISS) system in predicting group mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) trauma patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: A Canadian adult trauma tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive trauma patients admitted to the medical-surgical ICU or the neurosurgical ICU. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each patient, demographic data, mechanism of injury, and surgical status were collected. Revised Trauma Scores and Injury Severity Scores were calculated from emergency room and operative data. The APACHE II score was calculated based on the data from the first 24 hrs of ICU admission. The probability of death was calculated for each patient based on the APACHE II and TRISS equations. The ability to predict group mortality for APACHE II and TRISS was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, two by two decision matrices, and calibration curve analysis. Four hundred seventy trauma patients were admitted to the ICU. Sixty-three (13%) patients died and 407 (87%) survived. There were significant differences between survivors and nonsurvivors in age, Glasgow Coma Scale, Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, and APACHE II score. By receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the areas under the curves (+/- SEM) of APACHE II and TRISS were 0.92 +/- 0.02 and 0.89 +/- 0.02, respectively. Using two by two decision matrices with a decision criterion of 0.5, the sensitivities, specificities, and percentages correctly classified were 50.8%, 97.3%, and 91.1%, respectively, for APACHE II, and 50.8%, 97.1%, and 90.9%, respectively, for TRISS. From the calibration curves, the r2 value was .93 (p = .0001) for APACHE II and .67 (p = .004) for TRISS. CONCLUSIONS: Both APACHE II and TRISS scores were shown to accurately predict group mortality in ICU trauma patients. APACHE II and TRISS may be utilized for quality assurance in ICU trauma patients. However, neither APACHE II nor TRISS provides sufficient confidence for prediction of outcome of individual patients.

APACHE↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of predictive outcomes of APACHE II and SAPS II in a surgical intensive care unit.

The Acute Physiologic Score and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and the Simplified Acute Physiologic Scale (SAPS) II are two of the more commonly employed predictors of outcome and performance in the intensive care unit setting. However, controversy persists about whether the scores generated by these systems have similar predictive value. This study compared the predicted mortalities derived from APACHE II and SAPS II and contrasted them to the actual mortality in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Data for 1665 patients admitted to the SICU between July 1994 and August 1997 were entered into an SICU computerized database. From recorded demographic, hemodynamic, and laboratory data, APACHE II and SAPS II scores were obtained with corresponding predicted mortalities. Patients were stratified by age into categories of less than and greater than 65 years old. Predicted mortalities by APACHE II and SAPS II were compared for each group. An additional analysis included a comparison of survivors and nonsurvivors. There was no significant difference in predicted mortality between APACHE II and SAPS II in any of the groups. Actual mortality was 30 of 486 (6.2%) in patients less than 65 years of age and 73 of 1179 (6.2%) in patients 65 years of age or greater. The APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortalities (mean +/- SD) for patients less than 65 years of age were 10.5% +/- 10.6% and 10.9% +/- 13.3%, respectively (P > .05). The APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortalities in patients 65 years of age or greater were 19.1% +/- 17.8% and 18.7% +/- 21.0%, respectively (P > .05). Similarly, when patients were stratified by survival status, no significant difference was present between groups. However, in individual patients, a difference between APACHE II and SAPS II scores was often present. We conclude that although disparities between APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortalities in individual patients may be significant, APACHE II and SAPS II have similar predictive value in a large SICU patient population. However, both APACHE II and SAPS II systems overestimate mortality in SICU patients. Based on our results, we conclude that either system can be used to measure quality of care in the SICU; however, neither system can be reliably applied to a single patient.

APACHE↗