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

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of Trauma Care Applying TRISS Methodology in a Caribbean Developing Country

“…It combined the earlier developed Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the Injury Severity score (ISS) (4,5). TRISS methodology was proposed to assess the degree of injury, calculate the chances of a patient's survival (for identification of cases for peer review), and compare the death rates to survival rates of patient populations in different hospitals (6). Despite further advancements in trauma care and identification of numerous limitations of TRISS, this methodology continues to be the most commonly used tool for monitoring trauma outcomes and assessing trauma unit performance (7,8).…”

Effect of acute physiologic derangements on outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage*

“…Outcome prediction for individual patients with acute, life-threatening diseases is often unreliable (7). The primary aim of this study was to identify potentially modifiable physiologic derangements during the acute phase of SAH that might exacerbate brain injury after SAH.…”

Assessment of three different mortality prediction models in four well-defined critical care patient groups at two points in time

“…They served to compare critical care outcome between continents, countries, ethnic and patient groups [5][6][7][8][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Characteristics of patient groups and medical practice often differ from country to country, from ICU to ICU and over time.…”