Wilairatana P, Noan N S, Chinprasatsak S, Prodeengam K, Kityaporn D, Looareesuwan S
Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1995 Mar;26(1):66-72.
The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation System (APACHE) III, the APACHE II, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS), and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS), calculated within the first 24 hours of admission, were compared in 209 critically ill patients admitted to the regional hospital in northeastern Thailand. Eighty-five (40.7%) patients subsequently died. The nonsurvivors had significantly higher APACHE III, APACHE II, SAPS and TISS scores than the survivors. ROC curves drawn for each severity index were in a discriminating position. There were no significant differences either among the areas under the ROC curves drawn for APACHE III, APACHE II, SAPS, and TISS, or among the overall accuracies of these indices. All four scoring system correlated well with the short-term prognosis, ie the mortality outcome, of critically ill patients. APACHE III, APACHE II, SAPS, and TISS appeared to be comparable to predictors of severity of critical illness. Selection of a severity indicator will depend on the resources available.
对泰国东北部地区医院收治的209例危重症患者入院后24小时内计算出的急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估系统（APACHE）III、APACHE II、简化急性生理学评分（SAPS）和治疗干预评分系统（TISS）进行了比较。85例（40.7%）患者随后死亡。非幸存者的APACHE III、APACHE II、SAPS和TISS评分显著高于幸存者。为每个严重程度指数绘制的ROC曲线处于判别位置。APACHE III、APACHE II、SAPS和TISS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。所有四个评分系统均与危重症患者的短期预后（即死亡率）密切相关。APACHE III、APACHE II、SAPS和TISS似乎与危重症严重程度的预测指标相当。严重程度指标的选择将取决于可用资源。
