04 September 2015 : Clinical Research
Scoring Systems in Assessing Survival of Critically Ill ICU Patients
Ana D. SekulicABDEF, Sladjana V. TrpkovicADEF, Aleksandar P. PavlovicADEF, Olivera M. MarinkovicABDF, Aleksandra N. IlicCDEDOI: 10.12659/MSM.894153
Med Sci Monit 2015; 21:2621-2629
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine which of the most commonly used scoring systems for evaluation of critically ill patients in the ICU is the best and simplest to use in our hospital.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study included 60 critically ill patients. After admittance to the ICU, APACHE II, SAPS II, and MPM II0 were calculated. During further treatment in the ICU, SOFA and MPM II were calculated at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h and 7 days after admittance using laboratory and radiological measures.
RESULTS: In comparison with survivors, non-survivors were older (p<0.01) and spent significantly more days on mechanical ventilation (p<0.01). ARDS was significantly more common in patients who survived compared to those who did not (chi-square=7.02, p<0.01), which is not the case with sepsis (chi-square=0.388, p=0.53). AUROC SAPS II was 0.690, and is only slightly higher than the other 2 AUROC incipient scoring systems, MPM II and APACHE II (0.654 and 0.623). The APACHE II has the highest specificity (81.8%) and MPM II the highest sensitivity (85.2%). MPM II7day AUROC (1.0) shows the best discrimination between patients who survived and those who did not. MPM II48 (0.836), SOFA72 (0.821) and MPM II72 (0.817) also had good discrimination scores.
CONCLUSIONS: APACHE II and SAPS II measured on admission to the ICU were significant predictors of complications. MPM II7day has the best discriminatory power, followed by SOFA7day and MPM II48. MPM II7day has the best calibration followed by SOFA7day and APACHE II.
Keywords: APACHE, Calibration, Critical Care - standards, Critical Illness, Intensive Care Units, Models, Statistical, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Respiration, Artificial, Risk, Severity of Illness Index
Editorial
01 March 2024 : Editorial
Editorial: First Regulatory Approvals for CRISPR-Cas9 Therapeutic Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and Transfusion-Dependent β-ThalassemiaDOI: 10.12659/MSM.944204
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944204
In Press
21 Feb 2024 : Clinical Research
Potential Value of HSP90α in Prognosis of Triple-Negative Breast CancerMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943049
22 Feb 2024 : Review article
Differentiation of Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Comprehensive Review of Imaging Techniques and Future ...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943168
23 Feb 2024 : Clinical Research
A Study of 60 Patients with Low Back Pain to Compare Outcomes Following Magnetotherapy, Ultrasound, Laser, ...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943732
26 Feb 2024 : Clinical Research
Predictive Value of Combined HbA1c and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.942509
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
01 Jan 2022 : Editorial
Editorial: Current Status of Oral Antiviral Drug Treatments for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Non-Hospitalized Pa...DOI :10.12659/MSM.935952
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e935952