Mortality prediction using acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV scoring systems: Is there a difference?
Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Babu Abraham
Keywords :
Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, mortality prediction, mortality rate, scoring systems
Citation Information :
Gopichandran V, Abraham B. Mortality prediction using acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV scoring systems: Is there a difference?. Indian J Crit Care Med 2018; 22 (5):332-335.
Background: Mortality prediction in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) setting is complex, and there are several scoring systems utilized for this process. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II has been the most widely used scoring system; although, the more recent APACHE IV is considered an updated and advanced prediction model. However, these two systems may not give similar mortality predictions.
Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the mortality prediction ability of APACHE II and APACHE IV scoring systems among patients admitted to a tertiary care ICU.
Methods: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, APACHE II and APACHE IV scores of ICU patients were computed using an online calculator. The outcome of the ICU admissions for all the patients was collected as discharged or deceased. The data were analyzed to compare the discrimination and calibration of the mortality prediction ability of the two scores.
Results: Out of the 1670 patients' data analyzed, the area under the receiver operating characteristic of APACHE II score was 0.906 (95% confidence interval [CI] – 0.890–0.992), and APACHE IV score was 0.881 (95% CI – 0.862–0.890). The mean predicted mortality rate of the study population as given by the APACHE II scoring system was 44.8 ± 26.7 and as given by APACHE IV scoring system was 29.1 ± 28.5. The observed mortality rate was 22.4%.
Conclusions: The APACHE II and IV scoring systems have comparable discrimination ability, but the calibration of APACHE IV seems to be better than that of APACHE II. There is a need to recalibrate the scales with weights derived from the Indian population.
Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: A physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981;9:591-7.
Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991;100:1619-36.
Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV: Hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1297-310.
Rapsang AG, Shyam DC. Scoring systems in the Intensive Care Unit: A compendium. Indian J Crit Care Med 2014;18:220-8.
Ayazoglu TA. Validation of the APACHE IV scoring system in patients with stroke: A comparison with the APACHE II system. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care 2011;15:7-12.
Lee H, Shon YJ, Kim H, Paik H, Park HP. Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical Intensive Care Unit. Korean J Anesthesiol 2014;67:115-22.
Ilker I, Mehmet K, Mehmet A, Aysenur D, Fesih K, Aysenur S, et al. Study of effectiveness of the SAPS II-III, APACHE II-IV, and MPM II scores in the determination of prognosis of the patients in reanimation Intensive Care Unit. Acta Med Meditterranea 2015;31:127.
Saleh A, Ahmed M, Sultan I, Abdel-Lateif A. Comparison of the mortality prediction of different ICU scoring systems (APACHE II and III, SAPS II, and SOFA) in a single-center ICU subpopulation with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2015;64:843-8.
Kamal M, Khan AN, Ali G. A comparison of APACHE II and APACHE IV scoring systems in predicting outcome in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and the adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Rawal Med J 2013;38:234-8.
Basu S, Bhattacharya M, Chatterjee TK, Chaudhuri S, Todi SK, Majumdar A, et al. Microalbuminuria: A novel biomarker of sepsis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2010;14:22-8.
Kakar P, Govil D, Gupta S, Srinivasan S, Mehta P, Prakash O, et al. Validation of APACHE IV in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2008;12 Suppl 2:P500.
Parajuli BD, Shrestha GS, Pradhan B, Amatya R. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV to predict Intensive Care Unit mortality. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015;19:87-91.
Moreno RP, Metnitz PG, Almeida E, Jordan B, Bauer P, Campos RA, et al. SAPS 3 – From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the Intensive Care Unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:1345-55.
Bosman RJ, Oudemane van Straaten HM, Zandstra DF. The use of intensive care information systems alters outcome prediction. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:953-8.
Sirio CA, Shepardson LB, Rotondi AJ, Cooper GS, Angus DC, Harper DL, et al. Community-wide assessment of intensive care outcomes using a physiologically based prognostic measure: Implications for critical care delivery from Cleveland Health Quality Choice. Chest 1999;115:793-801.
Vincent JL, Moreno R. Clinical review: Scoring systems in the critically ill. Crit Care 2010;14:207.
Bouch DC, Thompson JP. Severity scoring systems in the critically ill. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2008;8:181-5.
