Could we use the admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score for outcome prediction in critically ill obstetric patients?

Haddad, Z; Souissi, R; Kaddour, C; Trabelsi, W.; Bouchnak, M; Nagi, S

doi:10.1186/cc5620

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, the APACHE-II has widespread used in ICU for research and benchmarking. 44 Additionally, there are several updated versions recently included the APACHE-III and APACHE-IV scoring system. Importantly, there is no need for new instruments.…”

Section: Results Of Meta-regressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The APACHE scoring system can make quick general evaluation of diseased state based on vital signs, physiological situation and consciousness, which in turn help to the prediction of PI caused by multiple diseases. Currently, the APACHE‐II has widespread used in ICU for research and benchmarking 44 . Additionally, there are several updated versions recently included the APACHE‐III and APACHE‐IV scoring system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

APACHE scoring system and pressure injury risk for intensive care patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tang

Zha

Zhang

et al. 2022

Wound Repair Regeneration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to determine the association between Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scale and elevated pressure injure (PI) risk in intensive care units (ICU) and also evaluate the predictive value of APACHE score in PI patients. Comprehensive strategies were used to search studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase electronic databases for observational studies that provided data about APACHE scores related to PI in ICU. Eligible studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled SMD with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A summary ROC curve was plotted to calculate area under curve (AUC) for APACHE-II (15-20). Twenty-one studies involving 11,102 patients who met selection criteria were included. The 11.0% of patients (1229/11102) in ICU developed PIs. Overall, the PI group had a higher score compared with the non-PI group in the APACHE II (22.1 ± 8.0 vs. 14.5 ± 7.4, mean ± SD). The APACHE-III of PI patients was significantly more than that in the non-PI group (79.9 ± 25.6 vs. 59.9 ± 30.4, mean ± SD). The pooled SMD was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06, I 2 = 91.7%, p-value < 0.001). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk of PIs did not vary with the type of APACHE score (II, III, IV) and the type of study design (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, longitudinal study). Proportion of males (I 2 = 91.68%, p value = 0.090), publish year (I 2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.187) and mean age of patients (I 2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.937) were not the sources of heterogeneity. APACHE-II (15-20) achieves the best predictive performance in PI, and the prediction accuracy was balanced with equal sensitivity and specificity (Sen: 0.72, 0.62-0.80; Spec: 1.72, 1.25-2.38). In conclusion, higher APACHE scores are frequently accompanied by a higher incidence of PI among critical-care patients. APACHE-II scores (15-20) satisfactorily predicted PI, and strategies to prevent PI should be aggressively implemented.

show abstract

Section: Results Of Meta-regressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%