Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.
Journal
Critical care research and practice
ISSN: 2090-1305
Titre abrégé: Crit Care Res Pract
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101539357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
06
04
2021
revised:
12
05
2021
accepted:
09
06
2021
entrez:
14
7
2021
pubmed:
15
7
2021
medline:
15
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.
METHODS
METHODS
All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34258059
doi: 10.1155/2021/5443083
pmc: PMC8225448
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04713852']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5443083Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Jeroen Vandenbrande et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Blood Adv. 2018 Nov 27;2(22):3198-3225
pubmed: 30482763
Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e195S-e226S
pubmed: 22315261
Acute Crit Care. 2018 Nov;33(4):216-221
pubmed: 31723888
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Apr-Jun;33(2):248-253
pubmed: 28781454
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
pubmed: 3928249
Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug;48(8):e657-e665
pubmed: 32697506
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Aug;67(2):115-22
pubmed: 25237448
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
J Crit Care. 2011 Feb;26(1):105.e11-8
pubmed: 20869840
Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1297-310
pubmed: 16540951
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704
pubmed: 32678530
Crit Care Med. 2021 Jan 1;49(1):e105-e107
pubmed: 32991357
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):854-887
pubmed: 32222812
Thromb Res. 2020 Oct;194:209-215
pubmed: 32788120
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Feb;16(2):761-70
pubmed: 9469368
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131