• Yeldho Eason Varghese, M S Kalaiselvan, M K Renuka, and A S Arunkumar.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
• J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Apr 1; 33 (2): 248-253.

Background And AimsOutcome prediction of critically ill patients is an integral part of care in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems provide an objective means of mortality prediction in ICU. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of APACHE II and IV scoring system in our ICU.Material And MethodsAll patients admitted to the ICU between January and June 2014 and who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. APACHE II and IV score were calculated during the first 24 h of ICU stay based on the worst values. All patients were followed up till discharge from the hospital or death. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0. Discrimination of the model for mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.ResultsOf a total 1268, 1003 patients were included in this study. The mean (±standard deviation) admission APACHE II score was 19.4 ± 8.9, and APACHE IV score was 59.1 ± 27.2. The APACHE scores were significantly higher among nonsurvivors than survivors (P < 0.001). The overall crude hospital mortality rate was 17.6%. APACHE IV had better discriminative power area under the ROC curve ([AUC] -0.82) than APACHE II (AUC-0.75). Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration.ConclusionsAPACHE IV showed better discrimination compared to APACHE II in our ICU population. Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration. However, APACHE II calibrated better compared to APACHE IV.

4 keywords...

hide…