Why the study?
APACHE II and SOFA are widely used general scoring systems, but their comparative ability to predict outcomes in surgical and medical ICU patients needed evaluation.
Do APACHE II and SOFA scoring systems accurately predict outcomes in surgical and medical ICU patients?
Observational (n=300)
Do APACHE II and SOFA scoring systems accurately predict outcomes in surgical and medical ICU patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 73.7% for APACHE II, 63.4% for SOFA
p-value: p=<0.0001 for APACHE II, 0.001 for SOFA
Both APACHE II and SOFA scoring systems show predictive accuracy for ICU outcomes, with SOFA being recommended due to its simplicity.
CONTEXT: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) are of the most validated and prevalent general scoring systems over the world. AIMS: The aim of the current study was to evaluate APACHE II and SOFA ability in predicting the outcomes (survivors, nonsurvivors) in surgical and medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU). SETTING AND DESIGN: This was an observational and prospective study of 300 consecutive patients admitted in surgical and medical ICU during a 6-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: APACHE II and SOFA scores and demographic characteristics were recorded for each patient separately in the first admission 24 h. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Data analysis showed a significant statistical difference in APACHE II and SOFA scores between survivor and nonsurvivor patients (P < 0.0001, P = 0.001; respectively). The discrimination power was acceptable for APACHE II and poor for SOFA (area under ROC [AUC] curve: 73.7% (standard error [SE]: 3.2%), 63.4% [SE: 3.6%]; respectively). The acceptable calibration was seen just for SOFA (χ(2) = 11.018, P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: Both APACHE II and SOFA showed good predictive accuracy for results in surgical and medical ICUs; however, the SOFA is the choice to select, because of being simpler and easier to record data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hosseini et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Intensive Care Unit patients (n=300). APACHE II and SOFA scoring systems was evaluated on Outcomes (survivors, nonsurvivors) (AUC 73.7% for APACHE II, 63.4% for SOFA, p=<0.0001 for APACHE II, 0.001 for SOFA).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: