• Hsien-Wei Ting, Ming-Shung Chen, Yueh-Chun Hsieh, and Chien-Lung Chan.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Taipei Hospital, Department of Health, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
• J Chin Med Assoc. 2010 Mar 1;73(3):139-43.

BackgroundHow to effectively use the finite resources of an intensive care unit (ICU) for neurosurgical patients is a critical decision-making process. Mortality prediction models are effective tools for allocating facilities. This study intended to distinguish the prediction power of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) for neurosurgical patients.MethodsAccording to the definitions of the APACHE II, this study recorded both APACHE II and SAPS II scores of 154 neurosurgical patients in the ICU of a 600-bed general hospital. Linear regression models of GCS (GCS-mr) were constructed. The t test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used as the statistical evaluation methods.ResultsThere were 50 (32.5%) females and 104 (67.5%) males in this study. Among them, 108 patients survived and 46 patients died. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of SAPS II and APACHE II were 0.872 and 0.846, respectively. The AUC of GCS-mr was 0.866, and the R(2) was 0.389. The evaluation powers of SAPS II, GCS-mr and APACHE II were the same (p > 0.05). Patients with GCS 5 or GCS-M > 3 (p < 0.01).ConclusionThe predictive powers of SAPS II, APACHE II and GCS-mr were the same. The GCS-mr is more convenient for predicting mortality in neurosurgical patients. Both GCS Copyright 2010 Elsevier. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…