• Ramesh Venkataraman, Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Lakshmi Ranganathan, Senthilkumar Rajagopal, Babu K Abraham, and Nagarajan Ramakrishnan.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
• Indian J Crit Care Med. 2018 May 1; 22 (5): 332-335.

BackgroundMortality prediction in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) setting is complex, and there are several scoring systems utilized for this process. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II has been the most widely used scoring system; although, the more recent APACHE IV is considered an updated and advanced prediction model. However, these two systems may not give similar mortality predictions.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the mortality prediction ability of APACHE II and APACHE IV scoring systems among patients admitted to a tertiary care ICU.MethodsIn this prospective longitudinal observational study, APACHE II and APACHE IV scores of ICU patients were computed using an online calculator. The outcome of the ICU admissions for all the patients was collected as discharged or deceased. The data were analyzed to compare the discrimination and calibration of the mortality prediction ability of the two scores.ResultsOut of the 1670 patients' data analyzed, the area under the receiver operating characteristic of APACHE II score was 0.906 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.890-0.992), and APACHE IV score was 0.881 (95% CI - 0.862-0.890). The mean predicted mortality rate of the study population as given by the APACHE II scoring system was 44.8 ± 26.7 and as given by APACHE IV scoring system was 29.1 ± 28.5. The observed mortality rate was 22.4%.ConclusionsThe APACHE II and IV scoring systems have comparable discrimination ability, but the calibration of APACHE IV seems to be better than that of APACHE II. There is a need to recalibrate the scales with weights derived from the Indian population.

5 keywords...

hide…