ICU, Hospital de Câncer-I, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Centro de Tratamento Intensivo, 10 degrees Andar; Pça. Cruz Vermelha, 23, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20230-130, Brazil.
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Jul;36(7):1188-95. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1807-7. Epub 2010 Mar 11.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to validate the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and 3 (SAPS 3), the Mortality Probability Models III (MPM(0)-III), and the Cancer Mortality Model (CMM) in patients with cancer admitted to several intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: Seven hundred and seventeen consecutive patients (solid tumors 93%; hematological malignancies 7%) included over a 2-month period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The main reasons for ICU admission were postoperative care (57%), sepsis (15%) and respiratory failure (10%). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 21 and 30%, respectively. When all 717 patients were evaluated, discrimination was superior for both SAPS II (AROC = 0.84) and SAPS 3 (AROC = 0.84) scores compared to CMM (AROC = 0.79) and MPM(0)-III (AROC = 0.71) scores (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Calibration was better using CMM and the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for South American countries (CSA). MPM(0)-III, SAPS II and standard SAPS 3 scores underestimated mortality (standardized mortality ratio, SMR > 1), while CMM tended to overestimation (SMR = 0.48). However, using the SAPS 3 for CSA resulted in more precise estimations of the probability of death [SMR = 1.02 (95% confidence interval = 0.87-1.19)]. Similar results were observed when scheduled surgical patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for CSA was found to be accurate in predicting outcomes in cancer patients requiring ICU admission.
目的:本研究旨在验证 SAPS II 和 SAPS 3、MPM(0)-III 和 CMM 在多个重症监护病房(ICU)收治的癌症患者中的准确性。
设计:前瞻性多中心队列研究。
设置:巴西 28 个 ICU。
患者:连续纳入 717 例患者(实体瘤 93%;血液恶性肿瘤 7%),为期 2 个月。
干预措施:无。
测量和主要结果:通过接受者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)评估区分度,通过 Hosmer-Lemeshow 拟合优度检验评估校准度。入住 ICU 的主要原因是术后护理(57%)、脓毒症(15%)和呼吸衰竭(10%)。ICU 和医院死亡率分别为 21%和 30%。当评估所有 717 例患者时,SAPS II(AUC = 0.84)和 SAPS 3(AUC = 0.84)评分的区分度均优于 CMM(AUC = 0.79)和 MPM(0)-III(AUC = 0.71)评分(所有比较 P<0.05)。校准度使用 CMM 和为南美洲国家定制的 SAPS 3 评分方程更好(CSA)。MPM(0)-III、SAPS II 和标准 SAPS 3 评分低估死亡率(标准化死亡率比,SMR>1),而 CMM 则倾向于高估(SMR = 0.48)。然而,使用 CSA 的 SAPS 3 可更准确地估计死亡概率[SMR = 1.02(95%置信区间= 0.87-1.19)]。排除择期手术患者后也观察到类似的结果。
结论:在这项多中心研究中,为 CSA 定制的 SAPS 3 评分方程在预测需要入住 ICU 的癌症患者的结局方面是准确的。
Intensive Care Med. 2006-11
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020-3-24
World J Crit Care Med. 2022-11-9
Curr Opin Oncol. 2009-7
Crit Care. 2009-2-6
Intensive Care Med. 2006-11