Key result
The SAPS 3 prognostic model demonstrated superior discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality for critically ill cancer patients with an AUROC of 0.948 compared to 0.863 for APACHE II.
Why the study?
Does SAPS 3, APACHE II, or APACHE IV better predict in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cancer?
Population
981 consecutive adult patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit over a 2-year period in a…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
In-hospital
Authors
Loading...
May support SAPS 3 for risk stratification in cancer ICU patients; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Cohort (n=981)
No
Does SAPS 3, APACHE II, or APACHE IV better predict in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cancer?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.948% vs 0.863%
p-value: p=<0.001
In critically ill cancer patients, the SAPS 3 prognostic model demonstrated superior discrimination and calibration for predicting in-hospital mortality compared to APACHE II and APACHE IV.
Xing et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Cancer requiring intensive care (n=981). SAPS 3 prognostic model vs. APACHE II and APACHE IV prognostic models was evaluated on In-hospital mortality prediction (AUROC) (95% CI 0.914-0.982, p=<0.001). The SAPS 3 prognostic model demonstrated superior discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality for critically ill cancer patients with an AUROC of 0.948 compared to 0.863 for APACHE II.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: