Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical intensive care unit

Lee, Hannah; Shon, Yoon Jung; Kim, Hyerim; Paik, Hyesun; Park, Hee Pyoung

doi:10.4097/kjae.2014.67.2.115

Cited by 46 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two general prognostic models (APACHE-II and SAPS-3) and one cancer-specific prognostic model were evaluated in this study. APACHE-II, SAPS-3, and APACHE-II CCP models were chosen for comparisons because these models are currently used in our ICU and are one of the most popular models around the world [12][13][14]. According to the study objective, we found a better performance for APACHE-II CCP model than those for APACHE-II, SAPS-3, and SAPS-3 CSA models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Performance of Three Prognostic Models in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Study

D¹,

Larrondo-Muguercia²,

Lorente³

et al. 2019

Int J Cancer Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of "Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II" (APACHE-II), "Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3" (SAPS-3), and "APACHE-II Score for Critically Ill Patients with a Solid Tumor" (APACHE-IICCP) models in cancer patients admitted to ICU. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 414 patients with an active solid tumor. Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C test (H-L). Results: The hospital mortality rate was 32.6%. In the total cohort, discrimination was superior for APACHE-IICCP model (AROC 0.98) compared to APACHE-II (AROC 0.96), SAPS-3 (AROC 0.91), and SAPS-3 for Central and South American countries (SAPS-3CSA) (AROC 0.95) models. Calibration was good (p-valueof H-L test > 0.05) using APACHE-IICCP, APACHE-II and SAPS-3CSA models. Estimation of the probability of death was more precise with APACHE-IICCP model (standardized mortality ratio, SMR = 1.03). Further analysis showed that discrimination was better with APACHE-IICCP model than with APACHE-II, SAPS-3, and SAPS-3CSA models whether for patients with planned ICU admission (AROC 0.97 vs. 0.96, 0.95 and 0.95, respectively) or for patients with unplanned ICU admission (AROC 0.97 vs. 0.94, 0.86 and 0.95). When the SMR and calibration were analyzed, the APACHE-IICCP model was the only model to provide predicted mortality rates closer to the observed mortality for patients with planned and for patients with unplanned ICU admission.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Performance of Three Prognostic Models in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Study

D¹,

Larrondo-Muguercia²,

Lorente³

et al. 2019

Int J Cancer Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in a retrospective singlecenter study including patients from a surgical ICU in a Korean academic medical care center, the overall discrimination and calibration of APACHE IV were similar to those of APACHE II. 37 In a prospective single-center study comparing the performance of APACHE II and III from a neuro-ICU at Taichung Veterans General Hospital, the APACHE III provided better prediction for severe morbidity than the GCS and APACHE II for patients with acute head injury, 38 but an independent external validation of these results is pending. Another limitation may have been an underestimation of SE duration, especially with unwitnessed onset, which is often the case for nonconvulsive SE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illness severity scoring in status epilepticus—When STESS meets APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objective To characterize a critically ill cohort with status epilepticus (SE) by the illness severity scoring systems SAPS II (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), and SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), and to compare their performance with the STESS (Status Epilepticus Severity Score) for outcome prediction. Methods The prospective cohort study was carried out at the University Hospital Basel, a Swiss tertiary academic medical care center. Consecutive adult SE patients hospitalized in the intensive care units from 2011 to 2016 were included. Illness severity scores and additional clinical data were recorded. Logistic regression models using automated variable selection were applied to identify scores associated with no return to functional and neurological baseline and death. Measures of discrimination and calibration were assessed. Results Among 184 patients, 33% returned to baseline. Median scores of the illness severity scores were within the lowest third of the possible scoring ranges, and all differed significantly between patients with and without return to baseline. The areas under the receiver operating curves for the prediction of no return to baseline and death ranged from 0.64 to 0.73, with the highest value for the STESS predicting no return to baseline. Measures of calibration revealed adequate model fit for all analyses. Among integral components of the scoring systems, only the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) differed significantly between patients with and without return to baseline. In multivariable analyses, decreasing GCS and increasing STESS had the strongest associations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77‐0.93 and OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.05‐1.68, respectively) with no return to baseline independent of all other scoring systems, whereas the APACHE II revealed the strongest association with death (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06‐1.25). Significance Although complex illness severity scoring systems in SE patients facilitate benchmarking and comparisons with other severely ill patient cohorts, they offer no advantages over the STESS and GCS regarding prediction of no return to baseline.

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] In our daily clinical routine, we use APACHE II and SOFA scores to determine mortality, and the TISS-28 score is used by nurses in the ICU. The TISS-28 calculates the amount of nursing time spent on direct patient care and does not require any laboratory findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utility of using the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 to predict mortality in intensive care unit

Şeker

Hergünsel

Bostancı

et al. 2017

EJMO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical intensive care unit

Cited by 46 publications

References 31 publications

Performance of Three Prognostic Models in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Study

Performance of Three Prognostic Models in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Study

Illness severity scoring in status epilepticus—When STESS meets APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA

Utility of using the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 to predict mortality in intensive care unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About