Dataset Information

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

Methods

All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs.

Results

116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively.

Conclusions

APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

SUBMITTER: Vandenbrande J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8225448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSepsis is a severe medical condition that can be life-threatening. If sepsis progresses to septic shock, the mortality rate increases to around 40%, much higher than the 10% mortality observed in sepsis. Diabetes increases infection and sepsis risk, making management complex. Various scores of screening tools, such as Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), are used to predict the severity or mortality rate of disease. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness and optimal cutoff points of these scores. We focused on the early prediction of septic shock in patients with diabetes in the Emergency Department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to collect data on patients with diabetes. We collected prediction factors and MEWS, SOFA, SAPS II and APACHE II scores to predict septic shock in these patients. We determined the optimal cutoff points for each score. Subsequently, we compared the identified scores with the gold standard for diagnosing septic shock by applying the Sepsis-3 criteria.ResultsSystolic blood pressure (SBP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), pH, and lactate concentrations were significant predictors of septic shock (p < 0.001). The SOFA score performed well in predicting septic shock in patients with diabetes. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the SOFA score was 0.866 for detection within 48 h and 0.840 for detection after 2 h of admission to the ED, with the optimal cutoff score of ≥ 6.ConclusionSBP, SpO2, GCS, pH, and lactate concentrations are crucial for the early prediction of septic shock in patients with diabetes. The SOFA score is a superior predictor for the onset of septic shock in patients with diabetes compared with MEWS, SAPS II, and APACHE II scores. Specifically, a cutoff of ≥ 6 in the SOFA score demonstrates high accuracy in predicting shock within 48 h post-ED visit and as early as 2 h after ED admission.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Coronavirus disease 2019 has emerged as a major global health threat with a great number of deaths in China. We aimed to assess the association between Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019, and to compare the predictive ability of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and Confusion, Urea, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, Age 65 (CURB65) score. DESIGN:Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING:Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. SUBJECTS:Confirmed patients with coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized in the ICU of Tongji hospital from January 10, 2020, to February 10, 2020. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 178 potentially eligible patients with symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019, 23 patients (12.92%) were diagnosed as suspected cases, and one patient (0.56%) suffered from cardiac arrest immediately after admission. Ultimately, 154 patients were enrolled in the analysis and 52 patients (33.77%) died. Mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.23?±?6.05) was much higher in deaths compared with the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 10.87?±?4.40 in survivors (p < 0.001). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was independently associated with hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13). In predicting hospital mortality, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score demonstrated better discriminative ability (area under the curve, 0.966; 95% CI, 0.942-0.990) than Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (area under the curve, 0.867; 95% CI, 0.808-0.926) and CURB65 score (area under the curve, 0.844; 95% CI, 0.784-0.905). Based on the cut-off value of 17, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score could predict the death of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with a sensitivity of 96.15% and a specificity of 86.27%. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the survivor probability of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score less than 17 was notably higher than that of patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score greater than or equal to 17 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was an effective clinical tool to predict hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and CURB65 score. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score greater than or equal to 17 serves as an early warning indicator of death and may provide guidance to make further clinical decisions.

Project description:Objectives: In critical care it is crucial to appropriately assess the risk of mortality for each patient. This is especially relevant in pediatrics, with its need for accurate and repeatable scoring. Aim of this study was to evaluate an age-adapted version of the expanded Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; (p-SAPS II), a repeatable, newly-designed scoring system compared to established scores (Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score/pSOFA, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score-2/PELOD-2 and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3/PIM3). Design: This retrospective cohort pilot study included data collected from patients admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at the Medical University of Vienna between July 2017 through December 2018. Patients: 231 admissions were included, comprising neonates (gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks) and patients up to 18 years of age with a PICU stay longer than 48 h. Main Outcomes: Mortality risk prediction and discrimination between survivors and non-survivors were the main outcomes of this study. The primary statistical methods for evaluating the performance of each score were the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and goodness-of-fit test. Results: Highest AUROC curve was calculated for p-SAPS II (AUC = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.96; p < 0.001). This was significantly higher than the AUROCs of PELOD-2/pSOFA but not of PIM3. However, in a logistic regression model including p-SAPS II and PIM3 as covariates, p-SAPS II had a significant effect on the accuracy of prediction (p = 0.003). Nevertheless, according to the goodness-of-fit test for p-SAPS II and PIM3, p-SAPS II overestimated the number of deaths, whereas PIM3 showed acceptable estimations. Repeatability testing showed increasing AUROC values for p-SAPS II throughout the clinical stay (0.96 at day 28) but still no significant difference to PIM 3. The prediction accuracy, although improved over the days and even exceeded PIM 3. Conclusions: The newly-created p-SAPS II performed better than the established PIM3 in terms of discriminating between survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, p-SAPS II can be assessed repeatably throughout a patient's PICU stay what improves mortality prediction. However, there is still a need to optimize calibration of the score to accurately predict mortality sooner throughout the clinical stay.