Moreau R, Soupison T, Vauquelin P, Derrida S, Beaucour H, Sicot C
Service de Réanimation et de Médecine d'Urgence, Centre Hospitalier Emile-Roux, Eaubonne, France.
Crit Care Med. 1989 May;17(5):409-13. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198905000-00006.
The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS), the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), the Acute Physiology Score (APS), and the Coronary Prognostic Index (CPI), calculated within the first 24 h of ICU admission, were compared in 76 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Sixteen (21%) patients subsequently died in the ICU. The nonsurvivors had significantly higher SAPS, APACHE II, and CPI scores than the survivors. ROC curves drawn for each severity index were in a discriminating position. There were no significant differences either between the areas under the ROC curves drawn for SAPS, APACHE II, and CPI, or between the overall accuracies of these indices. APS provided less homogeneous information. We conclude that SAPS and APACHE II, two severity indices which are easy to use, assess accurately the short-term prognosis, i.e., the ICU outcome, of patients with AMI.
对76例急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者在入住重症监护病房（ICU）的最初24小时内计算的简化急性生理学评分（SAPS）、急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估II（APACHE II）、急性生理学评分（APS）和冠状动脉预后指数（CPI）进行了比较。16例（21%）患者随后在ICU死亡。非幸存者的SAPS、APACHE II和CPI评分显著高于幸存者。为每个严重程度指数绘制的ROC曲线处于有鉴别力的位置。为SAPS、APACHE II和CPI绘制的ROC曲线下面积之间，或这些指数的总体准确性之间均无显著差异。APS提供的信息不太一致。我们得出结论，SAPS和APACHE II这两个易于使用的严重程度指数能够准确评估AMI患者的短期预后，即ICU结局。
