Key result
The APACHE IV score demonstrated good discrimination and calibration for predicting hospital mortality with an AUROC of 0.759, performing comparably to the APACHE II score.
Why the study?
Does the APACHE IV score accurately predict hospital mortality compared to the APACHE II score in adult ICU patients?
Cohort (n=318)
No
Does the APACHE IV score accurately predict hospital mortality compared to the APACHE II score in adult ICU patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.759% vs 0.752%
The APACHE IV score provides good discrimination and calibration for predicting hospital mortality in Korean ICU patients, performing comparably to APACHE II, but lacks sufficient discriminative ability to serve as a standalone triage criterion.
APACHE IV predicts ICU mortality comparably to APACHE II in Korean patients; leaves open its role as standalone triage tool.
BACKGROUND: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II model has been widely used in Korea. However, there have been few studies on the APACHE IV model in Korean intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to compare the ability of APACHE IV and APACHE II in predicting hospital mortality, and to investigate the ability of APACHE IV as a critical care triage criterion. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective cohort study. Measurements of discrimination and calibration were performed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test respectively. We also calculated the standardized mortality ratio (SMR). RESULTS: The APACHE IV score, the Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) score, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unplanned ICU admissions were independently associated with hospital mortality. The calibration, discrimination, and SMR of APACHE IV were good (H = 7.67, P = 0.465; C = 3.42, P = 0.905; AUROC = 0.759; SMR = 1.00). However, the explanatory power of an APACHE IV score >93 alone on hospital mortality was low at 44.1%. The explanatory power was increased to 53.8% when the hospital mortality was predicted using a model that considers APACHE IV >93 scores, medical admission, and risk factors for CCI >3 coincidentally. However, the discriminative ability of the prediction model was unsatisfactory (C index <0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE IV presented good discrimination, calibration, and SMR for hospital mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Intensive care unit (ICU) admission (n=318). APACHE IV score vs. APACHE II score was evaluated on Hospital mortality prediction (AUROC) (95% CI 0.699-0.819). The APACHE IV score demonstrated good discrimination and calibration for predicting hospital mortality with an AUROC of 0.759, performing comparably to the APACHE II score.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: