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
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jul;30(4):498-508.
doi: 10.1111/wrr.13021. Epub 2022 Jun 22.

APACHE scoring system and pressure injury risk for intensive care patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

APACHE scoring system and pressure injury risk for intensive care patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wen Tang et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

The present study was designed to determine the association between Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scale and elevated pressure injure (PI) risk in intensive care units (ICU) and also evaluate the predictive value of APACHE score in PI patients. Comprehensive strategies were used to search studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase electronic databases for observational studies that provided data about APACHE scores related to PI in ICU. Eligible studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled SMD with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A summary ROC curve was plotted to calculate area under curve (AUC) for APACHE-II (15-20). Twenty-one studies involving 11,102 patients who met selection criteria were included. The 11.0% of patients (1229/11102) in ICU developed PIs. Overall, the PI group had a higher score compared with the non-PI group in the APACHE II (22.1 ± 8.0 vs. 14.5 ± 7.4, mean ± SD). The APACHE-III of PI patients was significantly more than that in the non-PI group (79.9 ± 25.6 vs. 59.9 ± 30.4, mean ± SD). The pooled SMD was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06, I2 = 91.7%, p-value < 0.001). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk of PIs did not vary with the type of APACHE score (II, III, IV) and the type of study design (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, longitudinal study). Proportion of males (I2 = 91.68%, p value = 0.090), publish year (I2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.187) and mean age of patients (I2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.937) were not the sources of heterogeneity. APACHE-II (15-20) achieves the best predictive performance in PI, and the prediction accuracy was balanced with equal sensitivity and specificity (Sen: 0.72, 0.62-0.80; Spec: 1.72, 1.25-2.38). In conclusion, higher APACHE scores are frequently accompanied by a higher incidence of PI among critical-care patients. APACHE-II scores (15-20) satisfactorily predicted PI, and strategies to prevent PI should be aggressively implemented.

Keywords: APACHE; critical care; intensive care unit; pressure injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. Cui FF, Pan YY, Xie HH, et al. Pressure combined with ischemia/reperfusion injury induces deep tissue injury via endoplasmic reticulum stress in a rat pressure ulcer model. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:284.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Preventing pressure ulcers in hospitals. 2021. Accessed December 10, 2021. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/pressureulcertoolkit/....
    1. Cox J. Predictors of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20:364-375.
    1. Yu JN, Wu BB, Feng LP, Chen HL. COVID-19 related pressure injuries in patients and personnel: a systematic review. J Tissue Viability. 2021;30:283-290.
    1. Cai JY, Zha ML, Yuan BF, Xie Q, Chen HL. Prevalence of pressure injury among Chinese community-dwelling older people and its risk factors: a national survey based on Chinese longitudinal healthy longevity survey. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75:2516-2525.

Publication types