Comparison of the Mortality Probability Admission Model III, National Quality Forum, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV Hospital Mortality Models

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of the original Mortality Probability Admission Model III, ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum modification of Mortality Probability Admission Model III, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa models for comparing observed and risk-adjusted hospital mortality predictions. DESIGN: Retrospective paired analyses of day 1 hospital mortality predictions using three prognostic models. SETTING: Fifty-five ICUs at 38 U.S. hospitals from January 2008 to December 2012. PATIENTS: Among 174,001 intensive care admissions, 109,926 met model inclusion criteria and 55,304 had data for mortality prediction using all three models. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared patient exclusions and the discrimination, calibration, and accuracy for each model. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa excluded 10.7% of all patients, ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum 20.1%, and Mortality Probability Admission Model III 24.1%. Discrimination of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa was superior with area under receiver operating curve (0.88) compared with Mortality Probability Admission Model III (0.81) and ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum (0.80). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa was better calibrated (lowest Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic). The accuracy of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa was superior (adjusted Brier score = 31.0%) to that for Mortality Probability Admission Model III (16.1%) and ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum (17.8%). Compared with observed mortality, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa overpredicted mortality by 1.5% and Mortality Probability Admission Model III by 3.1%; ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum underpredicted mortality by 1.2%. Calibration curves showed that Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation performed well over the entire risk range, unlike the Mortality Probability Admission Model and ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum models. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa had better accuracy within patient subgroups and for specific admission diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa offered the best discrimination and calibration on a large common dataset and excluded fewer patients than Mortality Probability Admission Model III or ICU Outcomes Model/National Quality Forum. The choice of ICU performance benchmarks should be based on a comparison of model accuracy using data for identical patients.