Context:Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II are frequently used to predict the outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients of sepsis.Aim:The aim of the study was to compare the predictability of outcome with APACHE III and SAPS II score in ICU patients of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock and the 28-day mortality.Settings and Design:This study was an observational, prospective cohort study.Materials and Methods:A total of 100 consecutive patients of sepsis were studied over 20 months. The worst physiological and biochemical parameters during the first 24 h were recorded for the scores and the patient's 28-day outcome followed up.Statistical Analysis Used:Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median. Receivers operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to find the cutoff value, area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity of APACHE III score, and SAPS II score. Binary logistic regression with response variable as the outcome was utilized. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:The mean APACHE III score in the survivor group was 66.49 ± 18.56 as opposed to 80.67 ± 19.03 for nonsurvivors. The mean SAPS II score for the survivor group was 43.32 ± 13.02 as against the nonsurvivor group at 51.92 ± 12.34. The area under the ROC curve for APACHE III was 0.711 with 95% confidence interval as against 0.686 for SAPS II. The best cutoff value obtained for mortality prediction using the ROC curve was 69 for APACHE III while that for SAPS II was 49.Conclusions:APACHE III was found to be a better predictor of mortality as compared to SAPS II though the margin of difference in mortality prediction was not high.
Background: Inter-costal chest drain (ICD) used for varied thoracic pathologies causes continuous pain and irritation of the pleura, which limits respiratory efforts and impairs ventilatory function. Intrapleural block deposits local anaesthetic between the layers of pleura and may improve ventilatory function especially in non surgical patients. Methods: Twenty eight ASA I-III patients treated with ICD, who could perform incentive spirometry, were included for study. They were randomized to 'Group C' (control group); 'Group B' (Bupivacaine); 'Group M' (Bupivacaine + Morphine) and 'Group D' (Bupivacaine + Dexmedetomidine). The drugs were administered via the ICD itself and clamped thereafter for 15 min. The success of the block was assessed by time for first analgesic demand, maximum inspiratory volume generated and Numerical Rating Scale score for pain; by patients. Results: Effective analgesia was observed in Group B, M and D. Addition of an adjuvant significantly prolonged time for rescue analgesic demand. Patients who received local anaesthetic alone or with an adjuvant had significantly improved maximal inspiratory volume and required lesser rescue analgesics. No significant complications were observed in any group. Pain relief in post-surgical patients using intraplural block is masked by systemic analgesics. However its application in patients with ICD for non surgical indications was explored in this study and was found to improve patient comfort and ventilation. Conclusion: Intra-pleural blockade is safe and effective in relieving the constant pleural irritation and pain of ICD, thus enabling the patient to improve ventilatory effort and faster recovery of respiratory function.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.