Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 19:2021:5443083.
doi: 10.1155/2021/5443083. eCollection 2021.

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients

Jeroen Vandenbrande  1 , Laurens Verbrugge  1 , Liesbeth Bruckers  2 , Laurien Geebelen  1 , Ester Geerts  1 , Ina Callebaut  1   3 , Ine Gruyters  1 , Liesbeth Heremans  1 , Jasperina Dubois  1 , Bjorn Stessel  1   3
Affiliations

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients

Jeroen Vandenbrande et al. Crit Care Res Pract. .

Abstract

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: 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: 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 p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ten-fold cross-validated ROC curves for the overall group (a) and current treatment group (b).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier survival curve of critically ill COVID-19 patients stratified by the APACHE IV score. The number of patients at risk is shown in the graph.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Calibration plots for mortality of subgroup analysis for APACHE II (a) and APACHE IV (b).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zimmerman J. E., Kramer A. A., McNair D. S., Malila F. M. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine. 2006;34(5):1297–1310. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000215112.84523.f0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Knaus W. A., Draper E. A., Wagner D. P., Zimmerman J. E. Apache II. Critical Care Medicine. 1985;13(10):818–829. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Varghese Y. E., Kalaiselvan M. S., Renuka M. K., Arunkumar A. S. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV (APACHE IV) severity of illness scoring systems, in a multidisciplinary ICU. Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology. 2017;33(2):248–253. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.209741. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee H., Shon Y.-J., Kim H., Paik H., Park H.-P. Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical intensive care unit. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2014;67(2):115–122. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.67.2.115. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brinkman S., Bakhshi-Raiez F., Abu-Hanna A, et al. External validation of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV in Dutch intensive care units and comparison with acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and simplified acute physiology score II. Journal of Critical Care. 2011;26(1):e105–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.07.007. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources