首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Medicine Research >Predicting Mortality of Patients With Sepsis: A Comparison of APACHE II and APACHE III Scoring Systems
【24h】

Predicting Mortality of Patients With Sepsis: A Comparison of APACHE II and APACHE III Scoring Systems

机译:脓毒症患者的死亡率预测:APACHE II和APACHE III评分系统的比较

获取原文
       

摘要

Background: Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and III scores were developed in 1985 and 1991, respectively, and are used mainly for critically ill patients of all disease categories admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). They differ in how chronic health status is assessed, in the number of physiologic variables included (12 vs. 17), and in the total score. These two scoring systems have not been compared in predicting hospital mortality in patients with sepsis.Methods: We retrospectively identified all septic patients admitted to our 54-bed medical-surgical ICU between June 2009 and February 2014 using the APACHE outcomes database. We calculated correlation coefficients for APACHE II and APACHE III scores in predicting hospital mortality. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were also used to assess the mortality predictions.Results: We identified a total of 2,054 septic patients. Average APACHE II score was 19 ± 7, and average APACHE III score was 68 ± 28. ICU mortality was 11.8% and hospital mortality was 18.3%. Both APACHE II (r = 0.41) and APACHE III scores (r = 0.44) had good correlations with hospital mortality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two correlations (P = 0.1). ROC area under the curve (AUC) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78 - 0.82) for APACHE II, and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81 - 0.85) for APACHE III, suggesting that both scores have very good discriminative powers for predicting hospital mortality.Conclusions: This study shows that both APACHE II and APACHE III scores in septic patients were very strong predictors of hospital mortality. APACHE II was as good as APACHE III in predicting hospital mortality in septic patients.J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(11):907-910doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3083w
机译:背景:急性生理,年龄和慢性健康评估(APACHE)II和III评分分别于1985年和1991年制定,主要用于重症监护病房(ICU)所接受的所有疾病类别的重症患者。他们在评估慢性健康状况,所包括的生理变量数量(12对17)以及总分上有差异。方法:我们使用APACHE结果数据库回顾性地确定了2009年6月至2014年2月间在54张病床的ICU住院的所有败血症患者。我们计算了APACHE II和APACHE III得分的相关系数,以预测医院的死亡率。还使用了接收者操作特征曲线(ROC)来评估死亡率预测。结果:我们共鉴定了2,054名败血症患者。 APACHE II平均得分为19±7,APACHE III平均得分为68±28。ICU死亡率为11.8%,医院死亡率为18.3%。 APACHE II(r = 0.41)和APACHE III评分(r = 0.44)均与医院死亡率具有良好的相关性。两种相关性之间没有统计学上的显着差异(P = 0.1)。 APACHE II的曲线下ROC面积(AUC)为0.80(95%置信区间(CI):0.78-0.82),APACHE III的曲线下ROC面积为0.83(95%CI:0.81-0.85),这表明两个得分都具有很好的判别力结论:这项研究表明败血症患者的APACHE II和APACHE III评分都是很强的医院死亡率预测指标。 APACHE II与APACHE III在预测败血症患者的医院死亡率方面的表现一样好。 2017; 9(11):907-910doi:https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3083w

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号