Suppr超能文献

验证 APACHE II、APACHE III 和 SAPS II 评分在波兰混合重症监护病房住院和一年死亡率预测中的应用:一项队列研究。

Validation of APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores in in-hospital and one year mortality prediction in a mixed intensive care unit in Poland: a cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

Students' Scientific Society, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

出版信息

BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Dec 2;20(1):296. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01203-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are several scores used for in-hospital mortality prediction in critical illness. Their application in a local scenario requires validation to ensure appropriate diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, their use in assessing post-discharge mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors has not been extensively studied. We aimed to validate APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores in short- and long-term mortality prediction in a mixed adult ICU in Poland. APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores, with corresponding predicted mortality ratios, were calculated for 303 consecutive patients admitted to a 10-bed ICU in 2016. Short-term (in-hospital) and long-term (12-month post-discharge) mortality was assessed.

RESULTS

Median APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores were 19 (IQR 12-24), 67 (36.5-88) and 44 (27-56) points, with corresponding in-hospital mortality ratios of 25.8% (IQR 12.1-46.0), 18.5% (IQR 3.8-41.8) and 34.8% (IQR 7.9-59.8). Observed in-hospital mortality was 35.6%. Moreover, 12-month post-discharge mortality reached 17.4%. All the scores predicted in-hospital mortality (p < 0.05): APACHE II (AUC = 0.78; 95%CI 0.73-0.83), APACHE III (AUC = 0.79; 95%CI 0.74-0.84) and SAPS II (AUC = 0.79; 95%CI 0.74-0.84); as well as mortality after hospital discharge (p < 0.05): APACHE II (AUC = 0.71; 95%CI 0.64-0.78), APACHE III (AUC = 0.72; 95%CI 0.65-0.78) and SAPS II (AUC = 0.69; 95%CI 0.62-0.76), with no statistically significant difference between the scores (p > 0.05). The calibration of the scores was good.

CONCLUSIONS

All the scores are acceptable predictors of in-hospital mortality. In the case of post-discharge mortality, their diagnostic accuracy is lower and of borderline clinical relevance. Further studies are needed to create scores estimating the long-term prognosis of subjects successfully discharged from the ICU.

摘要

背景

有几种评分系统用于危重病患者的院内死亡率预测。在当地情况下应用这些评分系统需要进行验证,以确保其具有适当的诊断准确性。此外,这些评分系统在评估 ICU 幸存者出院后的死亡率方面的应用尚未得到广泛研究。我们旨在验证 APACHE II、APACHE III 和 SAPS II 评分在波兰混合成人 ICU 中的短期和长期死亡率预测中的适用性。我们为 2016 年入住 10 张床位 ICU 的 303 例连续患者计算了 APACHE II、APACHE III 和 SAPS II 评分及其相应的预测死亡率比值。评估了短期(院内)和长期(出院后 12 个月)死亡率。

结果

中位 APACHE II、APACHE III 和 SAPS II 评分为 19(IQR 12-24)、67(36.5-88)和 44(27-56)分,相应的院内死亡率比值分别为 25.8%(IQR 12.1-46.0)、18.5%(IQR 3.8-41.8)和 34.8%(IQR 7.9-59.8)。观察到的院内死亡率为 35.6%。此外,出院后 12 个月的死亡率达到 17.4%。所有评分均能预测院内死亡率(p<0.05):APACHE II(AUC=0.78;95%CI 0.73-0.83)、APACHE III(AUC=0.79;95%CI 0.74-0.84)和 SAPS II(AUC=0.79;95%CI 0.74-0.84);以及出院后的死亡率(p<0.05):APACHE II(AUC=0.71;95%CI 0.64-0.78)、APACHE III(AUC=0.72;95%CI 0.65-0.78)和 SAPS II(AUC=0.69;95%CI 0.62-0.76),评分之间无统计学差异(p>0.05)。评分的校准效果良好。

结论

所有评分都是院内死亡率的可接受预测因子。对于出院后的死亡率,其诊断准确性较低,具有边缘临床意义。需要进一步研究来创建评分,以估计从 ICU 成功出院的患者的长期预后。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8de6/7709291/168101ca60d0/12871_2020_1203_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

3
The Pros and Cons of the Prediction Game: The Never-ending Debate of Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13;16(18):3394. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183394.
4
Feasibility of transitioning from APACHE II to SAPS III as prognostic model in a Brazilian general intensive care unit. A retrospective study.
Sao Paulo Med J. 2015 May-Jun;133(3):199-205. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8120014. Epub 2014 Oct 17.
5
Circulating levels of GH predict mortality and complement prognostic scores in critically ill medical patients.
Eur J Endocrinol. 2009 Feb;160(2):157-63. doi: 10.1530/EJE-08-0786. Epub 2008 Nov 20.
10
Critical care in the emergency department: A physiologic assessment and outcome evaluation.
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Dec;7(12):1354-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00492.x.

引用本文的文献

2
Bridging the Gap: The Impact of Preoperative Nutritional Status and Inflammation in Postoperative Pain in Elderly Patients.
Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2025 Aug 28;2025:6832202. doi: 10.1155/anrp/6832202. eCollection 2025.
4
Risk prediction models for mortality in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jul 23;12:1564545. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1564545. eCollection 2025.
8
Predictive Factors and Nomogram for 30-Day Mortality in Heatstroke Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
West J Emerg Med. 2025 Mar 22;26(3):657-666. doi: 10.5811/westjem.23666.
9
Risk factors analysis of 90-day mortality in patients with sepsis in intensive care unit.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 20;20(6):e0325813. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325813. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

2
End-of-life management in intensive care units: a multicentre observational prospective cohort study.
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2019;51(5):348-356. doi: 10.5114/ait.2019.91189.
3
Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics.
BMC Med. 2019 Dec 16;17(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7.
4
Why should we not use APACHE II for performance measurement and benchmarking?
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017 Jul-Sep;29(3):268-270. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20170043. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
5
Mortality rate in Polish intensive care units is lower than predicted according to the APACHE II scoring system.
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43(11):1745-1746. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4883-0. Epub 2017 Jul 21.
6
Mortality rate is higher in Polish intensive care units than in other European countries.
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;43(9):1430-1432. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4804-2. Epub 2017 May 8.
7
Silesian Registry of Intensive Care Units.
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017;49(1):73-75. doi: 10.5603/AIT.2017.0011.
9
The Usefulness of the APACHE II Score in Obstetric Critical Care: A Structured Review.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016 Oct;38(10):909-918. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2016.06.013. Epub 2016 Aug 31.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验