Dataset Information

Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV (APACHE IV) severity of illness scoring systems, in a multidisciplinary ICU.

ABSTRACT: Outcome prediction of critically ill patients is an integral part of care in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems provide an objective means of mortality prediction in ICU. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of APACHE II and IV scoring system in our ICU.All patients admitted to the ICU between January and June 2014 and who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. APACHE II and IV score were calculated during the first 24 h of ICU stay based on the worst values. All patients were followed up till discharge from the hospital or death. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0. Discrimination of the model for mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.Of a total 1268, 1003 patients were included in this study. The mean (±standard deviation) admission APACHE II score was 19.4 ± 8.9, and APACHE IV score was 59.1 ± 27.2. The APACHE scores were significantly higher among nonsurvivors than survivors (P < 0.001). The overall crude hospital mortality rate was 17.6%. APACHE IV had better discriminative power area under the ROC curve ([AUC] -0.82) than APACHE II (AUC-0.75). Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration.APACHE IV showed better discrimination compared to APACHE II in our ICU population. Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration. However, APACHE II calibrated better compared to APACHE IV.

SUBMITTER: Varghese YE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5520601 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeverity 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.MethodsAll 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.Results116 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.ConclusionsAPACHE 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.

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:To compare the predicted vs observed mortality rate, criticality, and length of stay of the patients with healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary health center through acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV scoring. To analyze the drug sensitivity pattern of the isolated pathogen. Design:This is a prospective observational study involving the patients admitted to various ICUs of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Among 1,229 patients who were admitted in the ICUs for a period of 2.5 months (74 days), 767 patients stayed beyond 48 hours. They were monitored and 87 of them who developed HAIs were included in the study. The organisms isolated from the infection site were identified, and the drug resistance pattern was reported as per standard guidelines. The patients were followed up till their discharge, and adequate details pertaining to the study were collected including demographic details and physiological and biochemical parameters to calculate APACHE IV score, length of stay, and prognosis. Setting:Intensive care units of JSS Hospital, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. Subjects/patients:All patients who developed HAI in ICUs. Interventions:Nil. Measurements and main results:The HAI rate observed in this study was 15.7%. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was the most common type of infection. Klebsiella and Acinetobacter were the frequently isolated organisms. There was a high prevalence of drug resistance among these pathogens. The ICU mortality in infected patients was 21.83%, roughly twice as that of uninfected patients. The observed length of stay was 11.66 (±8.53) days. Conclusion:Healthcare-associated infection was associated with long duration of ICU stay. There was a high prevalence of drug resistance to various antibiotics. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV score was not found to be good scoring system to predict the mortality and length of stay in the patients who had HAI. How to cite this article:Gunasekaran S, Mahadevaiah S. Healthcare-associated Infection in Intensive Care Units: Overall Analysis of Patient Criticality by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV Scoring and Pathogenic Characteristics. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(4):252-257.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV (APACHE IV) severity of illness scoring systems, in a multidisciplinary ICU.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets