Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology
Download PDF

Study of the role of different severity scores in respiratory ICU

Egyptian Journal of Bronchology volume 7, pages 55–59 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Scoring systems are increasingly used in the ICUs in an attempt to accurately predict the mortality outcome in critically ill patients.

Objective

The performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II was compared in terms of calibration and discrimination in critically ill patients admitted to the respiratory ICU.

Materials and methods

Mean admission APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA scores were compared in 105 patients. The outcome measure was ICU mortality. The discriminatory ability of the scores was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was tested using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.

Results

The mean admission APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA scores were higher in nonsurvivors compared with survivors; yet, only admission SOFA score differed significantly. There was highly significant positive correlation between the three scores. The cutoffs obtained by the receiver operating characteristic curve were 11 for APACHE II, 7.5 for SOFA, and 40 for SAPS II score. Discrimination power of the three scores was poor; yet, in the order of best discrimination, SOFA [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.63] was followed by APACHE II (AUC = 0.60) and then SAPS II (AUC = 0.59). In terms of calibration, SAPS II (χ2 = 4.82; P = 0.78) had the best calibration and APACHE II (χ2 = 7.34; P = 0.39) had the worst. Logistic regression analysis showed that, of the three scores, only the SOFA score was an independent predictor of mortality among the respiratory ICU patients; with a unit increase in the SOFA score, there was a 1.2 times higher risk for mortality.

Conclusion

The SOFA score performed well in terms of calibration, whereas the SAPS II score performed well in terms of discrimination. The APACHE II score did not perform well in terms of calibration and had poor discrimination power. Egypt J Broncho 2013 7:55–59

References

  1. Chiavone PA, dos Santos Sens YA. Evaluation of APACHE II system among intensive care patients at a teaching hospital. Sao Paulo Med J 2003; 121:53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schusterschitz N, Joannidis M. Predictive capacity of severity scoring systems in the ICU. Contrib Nephrol 2007; 156:92–100.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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; 9:591–597.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vassar MJ, Lewis FR Jr, Chambers JA, Mullins RJ, O’Brien PE, Weigelt JA, et al. Prediction of outcome in intensive care unit trauma patients: A multicenter study of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and a 24-h intensive care unit (ICU) point system. J Trauma 1999; 47:324–329.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. J Am Med Assoc 1993; 270:2957–2962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent J, De Mendonça A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter P, Sprung C. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: Results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on ‘sepsis related problems’ of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 1998; 26:1793–1800.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vincent J, Ferreira F, Moreno R. Scoring systems for assessing organ dysfunction and survival. Crit Care Clin 2000; 16:353–366.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985; 13:818–829.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Juneja D, Singh O, Nasa P, Dang R. Comparison of newer scoring systems with the conventional scoring systems in general intensive care population. Minerva Anestesiol 2012; 78:194–200.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zilberberg MD, Epstein SK. Acute lung injury in the medical ICU: Comorbid conditions, age, etiology and hospital outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 157:1159–1164.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arabi Y, Venkatesh S, Haddad S, Al Shimemeri A, Al Malik S. A prospective study of prolonged stay in the intensive care unit: Predictors and impact on resource utilization, prospective, mixed ICU, >14 days. Int J Qual Health Care 2002; 14:403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Apostolopoulou E, Nikoloudi P, Georgoudi E. Outcome in ICU patients with nosocomial infections. ICUs Health Sci J 2003; 14:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pettilä V, Pettilä M, Sarna S, Voutilainen P, Takkunen O. Comparison of multiple organ dysfunction scores in the prediction of hospital mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:1705–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yıldız T, Gündoğuş B, Ateş G, Akyıldız L, Çelik Y, Topçu F, et al. The effectiveness of scoring systems and various biochemical parameters in predicting survival in a respiratory intensive care unit. Turk Biochem 2010; 35:128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shrestha GS, Gurung R, Amatya R. Comparison of acute physiology, age, chronic health evaluation III score with initial sequential organ failure assessment score to predict ICU mortality. Nepal Med Coll J 2011; 13:50–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rajnish G. Performance evaluation of APACHE II scores for an Indian patient with respiratory problems. Indian J Med Res 2004; 119:273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Han-chung HU, Chung-chi H, Ying-Huang T. Outcome analysis of patients requiring mechanical ventilation with severe community acquired pneumonia and identified bacterial pathogens. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28:229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta D, Ramanathan P, Aggarwal N, Jindal K. Assessment of factors predicting outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in North India. Respirology 2001; 6:125–130.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000; 19:453–473.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Halim DA, Murni TW, Redjeki IS. Comparison of Apache II, SOFA, and Modified SOFA scores in predicting mortality of surgical patients in intensive care unit at Dr Hasan Sadiki General Hospital. Crit Care Shock 2009; 12:157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sakr Y, Krauss C, Amaral AC, Réa-Neto A, Specht M, Reinhart K, Marx G. Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:798–803.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong DT, Crofts SL, Gomez M, McGuire GP, Byrick RJ. Evaluation of predictive ability of APACHE II system and hospital outcome in Canadian intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 1995; 23:1177–1183.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen YC, Tian YC, Liu NJ, Ho YP, Yang C, Chu YY, et al. Prospective cohort study comparing sequential organ failure assessment and acute physiology, age, chronic health evaluation III scoring systems for hospital mortality prediction in critically ill cirrhotic patients. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Diamond GA. What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45:85–89.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, 11341, Cairo, Egypt

    Mona Mansour & Iman Galal

  2. Abbassia Chest Hospital, Cairo, Egypt

    Enas Kassem

Authors
  1. Mona Mansour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iman Galal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enas Kassem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Mansour.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mansour, M., Galal, I. & Kassem, E. Study of the role of different severity scores in respiratory ICU. Egypt J Bronchol 7, 55–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-8426.123995

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-8426.123995

Keyword

  • APACHE II
  • ICU
  • respiratory ICU
  • SAPS II
  • SOFA