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
. 2022 Jan 26:8:744907.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.744907. eCollection 2021.

Dynamic APACHE II Score to Predict the Outcome of Intensive Care Unit Patients

Yao Tian  1 , Yang Yao  1 , Jing Zhou  1 , Xin Diao  1 , Hui Chen  1 , Kaixia Cai  1 , Xuan Ma  1 , Shengyu Wang  1
Affiliations

Dynamic APACHE II Score to Predict the Outcome of Intensive Care Unit Patients

Yao Tian et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score on different days in predicting the mortality of critically ill patients to identify the best time point for the APACHE II score.

Methods: The demographic and clinical data are retrieved from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV dataset. APACHE II scores on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 of hospitalization are calculated, and their performance is evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) analysis. The cut-off for defining the high risk of mortality is determined using Youden's index. The APACHE II score on day 3 is the best time point to predict hospital mortality of ICU patients. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test is then applied to evaluate the calibration of the day 3 APACHE II score.

Results: We recruited 6,374 eligible subjects from the MIMIC-IV database. Day 3 is the optimal time point for obtaining the APACHE II score to predict the hospital mortality of patients. The best cut-off for day 3 APACHE II score is 17. When APACHE II score ≥17, the sensitivity for the non-survivors and survivors is 92.8 and 82.2%, respectively, and the positive predictive value (PPV) is 23.1%. When APACHE II socre <17, the specificity for non-survivors and survivors is 90.1 and 80.2%, respectively, and the negative predictive value (NPV) is 87.8%. When day-3 APACHE II is used to predict the hospital mortality, the AUROC is 0.743 (P <0.001). In the ≥17 group, the sensitivity of non-survivors and survivors is 92.2 and 81.3%, respectively, and the PPV is 30.3%. In the <17 group, the specificity of non-survivors and survivors is 100.0 and 80.2%, respectively, and the NPV is 81.6%. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated day-3 APACHE II has a high predicting the hospital mortality (X 2 = 6.198, P = 0.625, consistency = 79.4%). However, the day-1 APACHE II has a poor calibration in predicting the hospital mortality rate (X 2 = 294.898, P <0.001).

Conclusion: Day-3 APACHE II score is an optimal biomarker to predict the outcomes of ICU patients; 17 is the best cut-off for defining patients at high risk of mortality.

Keywords: APACHE II; MIMIC-IV; intensive care units; mortality; predictor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of selecting patients according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
APACHE II score on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 days in survival group and non-survivors group (*P < 0.05).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sequential APACHE II score as predictors of the hospital mortality of patients. (A) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of APACHE II score on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 after admission to ICU. (B) The AUROC of APACHE II score on days 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 is compared to that of day 1.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The Kaplan-Meier survival curve of patients with an APACHE II score ≥ or <17.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Goulden R, Hoyle M-C, Monis J, Railton D, Riley V, Martin P, et al. . qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS for predicting inhospital mortality and ICU admission in emergency admissions treated as sepsis. Emerg Med J. (2018) 35:345–9. 10.1136/emermed-2017-207120 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zou X, Li S, Fang M, Hu M, Bian Y, Ling J, et al. . Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score as a predictor of hospital mortality in patients of coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. (2020) 48:e657–65. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004411 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, McGloughlin S, MacIsaac C, Bellomo R, et al. . Australian, outcomes NZICSCf, evaluation R: prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit. JAMA. (2017) 317:290–300. 10.1001/jama.2016.20328 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lambden S, Laterre PF, Levy MM, Francois B. The SOFA score-development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials. Crit Care. (2019) 23:374. 10.1186/s13054-019-2663-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bjorck V, Pahlman LI, Bodelsson M, Petersson AC, Kander T. Morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients with invasive group A streptococcus infection: an observational study. Crit Care. (2020) 24:302. 10.1186/s13054-020-03008-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources