ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE IV) in patients with cancer admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) in a single medical center in China.Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study including nine hundred and eighty one consecutive patients over a 2-year period.ResultsThe hospital mortality rate was 4.5%. When all 981 patients were evaluated, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC, 95% Confidential Intervals) of the three models in predicting hospital mortality were 0.948 (0.914–0.982), 0.863 (0.804–0.923), and 0.873 (0.813–0.934) for SAPS 3, APACHE II and APACHE IV respectively. The p values of Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics for the models were 0.759, 0.900 and 0.878 for SAPS 3, APACHE II and APACHE IV respectively. However, SAPS 3 and APACHE IV underestimated the in-hospital mortality with standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.5 and 1.17 respectively, while APACHE II overestimated the in-hospital mortality with SMR of 0.72. Further analysis showed that discrimination power was better with SAPS 3 than with APACHE II and APACHE IV whether for emergency surgical and medical patients (AUROC of 0.912 vs 0.866 and 0.857) or for scheduled surgical patients (AUROC of 0.945 vs 0.834 and 0.851). Calibration was good for all models (all p > 0.05) whether for scheduled surgical patients or emergency surgical and medical patients. However, in terms of SMR, SAPS 3 was both accurate in predicting the in-hospital mortality for emergency surgical and medical patients and for scheduled surgical patients, while APACHE IV and APACHE II were not.ConclusionIn this cohort, we found that APACHE II, APACHE IV and SAPS 3 models had good discrimination and calibration ability in predicting in-hospital mortality of critically ill patients with cancer in need of intensive care. Of these three severity scores, SAPS 3 was superior to APACHE II and APACHE IV, whether in terms of discrimination and calibration power, or standardized mortality ratios.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a very important method for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer, which carries a high rate of morbidity and mortality. This study was undertaken to assess the predictive score proposed by Ferguson et al for pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for patients with cancer. METHODS:The data of patients who admitted to the intensive care unit after transthoracic esophagectomy at Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College between September 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:Two hundred and seventeen patients were analyzed and 129 (59.4%) of them had postoperative pulmonary complications. Risk scores varied from 0 to 12 in all patients. The risk scores of patients with postoperative pulmonary complications were higher than those of patients without postoperative pulmonary complications (7.27±2.50 vs. 6.82±2.67; P=0.203). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications as well as in the increase of risk scores (χ 2 =5.477, P=0.242). The area under the curve of predictive score was 0.539±0.040 (95%CI 0.461 to 0.618; P=0.324) in predicting the risk of pulmonary complications in patients after esophagectomy. CONCLUSION:In this study, the predictive power of the risk score proposed by Ferguson et al was poor in discriminating whether there were postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines suggested that both dopamine and norepinephrine may be used, but specific doses are not recommended. The aim of this study is to determine the predictive role of vasopressors in patients with shock in intensive care unit. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two patients, who had received vasopressors for 1 hour or more in intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2008 and October 2011, were included.There were 85 men and 37 women, with a median age of 65 years (55-73 years). Their clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The median simplified acute physiological score 3 (SAPS 3) was 50 (42-55). Multivariate analysis showed that septic shock (P=0.018, relative risk: 4.094; 95% confi dential interval: 1.274-13.156), SAPS 3 score at ICU admission (P=0.028, relative risk: 1.079; 95% confidential interval: 1.008-1.155), and norepinephrine administration (P<0.001, relative risk: 9.353; 95% confidential interval: 2.667-32.807) were independent predictors of ICU death. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that administration of norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute resulted in a sensitivity of 75.9% and a specifi city of 90.3% for the likelihood of ICU death. In patients who received norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute there was more ICU death (71.4% vs. 44.8%) and in-hospital death (76.2% vs. 48.3%) than in those who received norepinephrine <0.7 μg/kg per minute. These patients had also a decreased 510-day survival rate compared with those who received norepinephrine <0.7 μg/kg per minute (19.2% vs. 64.2%). CONCLUSION: Septic shock, SAPS 3 score at ICU admission, and norepinephrine administration were independent predictors of ICU death for patients with shock. Patients who received norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute had an increased ICU mortality, an increased inhospital mortality, and a decreased 510-day survival rate.

Sedation was associated with in-hospital death. The patients who had received sedation had a longer duration of ventilation, a longer stay in intensive care unit and in hospital, and an increased in-hospital mortality rate compared with the patients who did not receive sedation. Compared with daily interruption or light sedation, deep sedation increased the in-hospital mortality and decreased the 60-month survival for patients who had received sedation.