Key result
APACHE II outperforms SAPS 3 for predicting ICU mortality after cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
The efficacy and comparative performance of APACHE II and SAPS 3 scoring tools as predictors of mortality in cardiac surgery patients were not well established.
Does the APACHE II score predict ICU mortality more accurately than the SAPS 3 score in patients after cardiac surgery?
Observational (n=433)
No
Does the APACHE II score predict ICU mortality more accurately than the SAPS 3 score in patients after cardiac surgery?
The APACHE II score is a highly discriminative tool, performing significantly better than SAPS 3, for predicting ICU mortality in patients recovering from cardiac surgery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
APACHE II may discriminate ICU mortality better than SAPS 3 after cardiac surgery; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
INTRODUCTION: Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II is an effective tool to predict outcomes in cardiac surgery recovery. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and compare the performance of the APACHE II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS 3) scoring tools as predictive indices of mortality in cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study, evaluating patients over 18 years of age who underwent cardiac surgeries between 2020 and 2023. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the APACHE II and SAPS 3 tools in detecting intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in critically ill patients. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of mortality between groups (primary outcome) using data on comorbidities. RESULTS: APACHE II was efficient in predicting mortality in cardiac surgery (sensitivity = 81%; specificity = 75%) as was SAPS 3 (sensitivity = 75%; specificity = 64%). Binary logistic regression revealed that mortality was significantly associated with comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease) and the type of surgery, with a higher risk in emergency procedures compared to elective ones. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, APACHE II and SAPS 3 proved to be efficient tools for predicting mortality in cardiac surgery patients admitted to the ICU. This study contributes to understanding these tools in a regional context and specifically in cardiac surgeries, as well as assessing other predictors that may be important for idenjpgying risk groups and predicting mortality after cardiac surgeries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bellettini‐Santos et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cardiac surgery recovery in ICU (n=433). APACHE II score vs. SAPS 3 score was evaluated on Prediction of ICU mortality (AUC 0.854, 95% CI 0.795-0.912, p=0.0058). The APACHE II score demonstrated superior discriminative ability for predicting ICU mortality in cardiac surgery patients compared to the SAPS 3 score (AUC 0.854 vs 0.761, p=0.0058).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: