Lee Hannah, Shon Yoon-Jung, Kim Hyerim, Paik Hyesun, Park Hee-Pyoung
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Aug;67(2):115-22. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.67.2.115. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV model has not yet been validated in Korea. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of the APACHE IV with those of APACHE II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, and Korean SAPS 3 in predicting hospital mortality in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU) population.
We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records for patients admitted to the SICU from March 2011 to February 2012 in a university hospital. Measurements of discrimination and calibration were performed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. We calculated the standardized mortality ratio (SMR, actual mortality predicted mortality) for the four models.
The study included 1,314 patients. The hospital mortality rate was 3.3%. The discriminative powers of all models were similar and very reliable. The AUCs were 0.80 for APACHE IV, 0.85 for APACHE II, 0.86 for SAPS 3, and 0.86 for Korean SAPS 3. Hosmer and Lemeshow C and H statistics showed poor calibration for all of the models (P < 0.05). The SMRs of APACHE IV, APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 were 0.21, 0.11 0.23, 0.34, and 0.25, respectively.
The APACHE IV revealed good discrimination but poor calibration. The overall discrimination and calibration of APACHE IV were similar to those of APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 in this study. A high level of customization is required to improve calibration in this study setting.
急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)IV模型尚未在韩国得到验证。本研究的目的是比较APACHE IV与APACHE II、简化急性生理学评分(SAPS)3以及韩国SAPS 3在预测外科重症监护病房(SICU)患者医院死亡率方面的能力。
我们回顾性分析了2011年3月至2012年2月在一家大学医院SICU住院患者的电子病历。分别使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)和Hosmer-Lemeshow检验进行区分度和校准测量。我们计算了这四种模型的标准化死亡率比值(SMR,实际死亡率/预测死亡率)。
该研究纳入了1314例患者。医院死亡率为3.3%。所有模型的区分能力相似且非常可靠。APACHE IV的AUC为0.80,APACHE II为0.85,SAPS 3为0.86,韩国SAPS 3为0.86。Hosmer和Lemeshow C及H统计量显示所有模型的校准效果均较差(P < 0.05)。APACHE IV、APACHE II、SAPS 3和韩国SAPS 3的SMR分别为0.21、0.11、0.23、0.34和0.25。
APACHE IV显示出良好的区分度但校准效果较差。在本研究中,APACHE IV的整体区分度和校准与APACHE II、SAPS 3和韩国SAPS 3相似。在本研究环境中,需要高度定制化以改善校准。