IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i18p3394-d266904.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Pros and Cons of the Prediction Game: The Never-ending Debate of Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr A. Fuchs

    (Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 14 Medykow Street, 40752 Katowice, Poland)

  • Iwona J. Czech

    (Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 14 Medykow Street, 40752 Katowice, Poland)

  • Łukasz J. Krzych

    (Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 14 Medykow Street, 40752 Katowice, Poland)

Abstract

Background: The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scales are scoring systems used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. We aimed to investigate their usefulness in predicting short- and long-term prognosis in the local ICU. Methods: This single-center observational study covered 905 patients admitted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017 to a tertiary mixed ICU. SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scores were calculated based on the worst values from the first 24 h post-admission. Patients were divided into surgical (SP) and nonsurgical (NSP) subjects. Unadjusted ICU and post-ICU discharge mortality rates were considered the outcomes. Results: Baseline SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scores were 41.1 ± 20.34, 14.07 ± 8.73, and 6.33 ± 4.12 points, respectively. All scores were significantly lower among SP compared to NSP ( p < 0.05). ICU mortality reached 35.4% and was significantly lower for SP (25.3%) than NSP (57.9%) ( p < 0.001). The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.826, 0.836, and 0.788 for SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scales, respectively, for predicting ICU prognosis, and 0.708, 0.709, and 0.661 for SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA, respectively, for post-ICU prognosis. Conclusions: Although APACHE II and SAPS II are good predictors of ICU mortality, they failed to predict survival after discharge. Surgical patients had a better prognosis than medical ICU patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr A. Fuchs & Iwona J. Czech & Łukasz J. Krzych, 2019. "The Pros and Cons of the Prediction Game: The Never-ending Debate of Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:18:p:3394-:d:266904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3394/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3394/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:18:p:3394-:d:266904. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.