Key result
The PANDORA score was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.04-1.13; P<.001) and demonstrated comparable predictive accuracy to the APACHE II score.
Why the study?
Does the PANDORA score predict mortality comparably to the APACHE II score in critically ill surgical patients?
Observational (n=312)
No
Does the PANDORA score predict mortality comparably to the APACHE II score in critically ill surgical patients?
The PANDORA score is a valid predictor of 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality in critically ill surgical patients, performing comparably to the APACHE II score.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change practice for mortality prediction in surgical ICU patients; leaves open prospective validation against APACHE II.
BACKGROUND: The Patient- And Nutrition-Derived Outcome Risk Assessment (PANDORA) was recently validated for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients; however, its utility in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unknown. METHODS: We investigated whether PANDORA is associated with 30, 90, and 180 day mortality in critically ill surgical patients by performing logistic regressions, controlling for age, sex, race, body mass index, macronutrient deficit, and length of stay. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of PANDORA vs Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores for mortality at each time point were also compared. RESULTS: 312 patients comprised the analytic cohort. PANDORA was associated with mortality at 30 (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.04-1.13; P < .001), 90 (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.12; P < .001), and 180 days (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15; P < .001). PANDORA and APACHE II were comparable for mortality prediction at 30 (AUC: 0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76 vs 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.81; P = .29), 90 (AUC: 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.77 vs 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.80; P = .52), and 180 days (AUC: 0.73, 95% CI 0.67-0.79 vs 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.81; P = .66). CONCLUSION: In surgical ICU patients, PANDORA was associated with mortality and was comparable with APACHE II for mortality prediction at 30, 90, and 180 days after initiation of care. Prospective studies are needed to assess whether nutrition support, stratified by PANDORA scores, can improve outcomes in surgical ICU patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakayama et al. (2018) conducted an observational in critically ill surgical patients (n=312). Patient- And Nutrition-Derived Outcome Risk Assessment (PANDORA) score vs. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was evaluated on 30-day mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.13, p=< .001). The PANDORA score was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.04-1.13; P<.001) and demonstrated comparable predictive accuracy to the APACHE II score.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: