IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v10y1990i3p155-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prognosis for Recovery from Multiple Organ system failure

Author

Listed:
  • Alain Rauss
  • William A. Knaus
  • Elizabeth Patois
  • Jean-Roger Le Gall
  • Philippe Loirat

Abstract

This study evaluated the accuracy and reliability of predictions for recovery from multiple organ system failure (OSF). A previous analysis had provided estimates of the probabilities of recovery from various combinations of OSF for 2,843 intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated in 13 U.S. hospitals. These estimates were applied prospectively to 2,405 ICU admissions in 27 French hospitals. Despite variations in the incidences of underlying disease and the distributions of OSF between the two countries, clinical outcomes were similar for the 5,248 total patients. In both countries, two OSFs persisting for more than one day resulted in a hospital death rate of 60%. Hospital mortality rates for patients with three or more OSFs persisting after one day consistently exceeded 90%. Isolated neurologic failure had the poorest overall prognosis, but various other combinations of OSFs did not result in signifi cantly different outcomes. The stability of the prognostic estimates in the two countries suggests that, despite pathogenetic variations, persistent multiple OSF results in consistent clinical outcomes. These mortality projections provide firm reference data for assessing efficacy of new treatments within institutions with similar standards of care. The narrow confidence intervals associated with these estimates also provide objectively defined op portunities to review future treatment plans for individual patients. Key words: prediction; mortality; outcome; prognosis; organ system failure. (Med Decis Making 1990;10:155-162)

Suggested Citation

  • Alain Rauss & William A. Knaus & Elizabeth Patois & Jean-Roger Le Gall & Philippe Loirat, 1990. "Prognosis for Recovery from Multiple Organ system failure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 155-162, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:10:y:1990:i:3:p:155-162
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9001000302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9001000302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:10:y:1990:i:3:p:155-162. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.