• Crit Care · Aug 2004

    Comparative Study

    Performance of six severity-of-illness scores in cancer patients requiring admission to the intensive care unit: a prospective observational study.

    • Márcio Soares, Flávia Fontes, Joana Dantas, Daniela Gadelha, Paloma Cariello, Flávia Nardes, César Amorim, Luisa Toscano, and José R Rocco.
    • Intensive Care Unit, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, and Programa de Pós-Graduação em Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. marciosoaresms@globo.com
    • Crit Care. 2004 Aug 1;8(4):R194-203.

    IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of five general severity-of-illness scores (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and III-J, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and the Mortality Probability Models at admission and at 24 hours of intensive care unit [ICU] stay), and to validate a specific score - the ICU Cancer Mortality Model (CMM) - in cancer patients requiring admission to the ICU.MethodsA prospective observational cohort study was performed in an oncological medical/surgical ICU in a Brazilian cancer centre. Data were collected over the first 24 hours of ICU stay. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration was done using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit H-tests.ResultsA total of 1257 consecutive patients were included over a 39-month period, and 715 (56.9%) were scheduled surgical patients. The observed hospital mortality was 28.6%. Two performance analyses were carried out: in the first analysis all patients were studied; and in the second, scheduled surgical patients were excluded in order to better compare CMM and general prognostic scores. The results of the two analyses were similar. Discrimination was good for all of the six studied models and best for Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III-J. However, calibration was uniformly insufficient (P < 0.001). General scores significantly underestimated mortality (in comparison with the observed mortality); this was in contrast to the CMM, which tended to overestimate mortality.ConclusionNone of the model scores accurately predicted outcome in the present group of critically ill cancer patients. In addition, there was no advantage of CMM over the other general models.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…