Comparison of Four Severity Assessment Scoring Systems in Critically Ill Patients for Predicting Patient Outcomes: A Prospective Observational Study From a Single Tertiary Center in Central India
- PMID: 39238710
- PMCID: PMC11375909
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66268
Comparison of Four Severity Assessment Scoring Systems in Critically Ill Patients for Predicting Patient Outcomes: A Prospective Observational Study From a Single Tertiary Center in Central India
Abstract
Background and aim A variety of scoring systems are employed in intensive care units (ICUs) with the objective of predicting patient morbidity and mortality. The present study aimed to compare four different severity assessment scoring systems, namely, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II (SAPS II) to predict prognosis of all patients admitted to a mixed medical ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital in central India. Methods The prospective observational study included 1136 patients aged 18 years or more, admitted to the mixed medical ICU. All patients underwent severity assessment using the four scoring systems, namely APACHE II, SOFA, REMS, and SAPS II, after admission. Predicted mortality was calculated from each of the scores and actual patient outcomes were noted. Receiver operating curve analysis was undertaken to identify the cut-off value of individual scoring systems for predicting mortality with optimum sensitivity and specificity. Calibration and discrimination were employed to ascertain the validity of each scoring model. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses among the study participants were conducted to identify the best scoring system, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results Final analysis was done on 957 study participants (mean (±SD) age-58.4 (±12.9) years; males-62.2%). The mortality rate was 14.7%. APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, and REMS scores were significantly higher among the non-survivors as compared to the survivors (p<0.05). SAPS II was found to have the highest AUC of 0.981 (p<0.001). SAPS II score >58 had 93.6% sensitivity, 94.1% specificity, 73.3% PPV, 98.8% NPV, and 94.0% diagnostic accuracy in predicting mortality. This scoring system also had the best calibration. Binary logistic regression showed that all four scoring systems were significantly associated with ICU mortality. After adjusting for each other, only SAPS II remained significantly associated with ICU mortality. Conclusion Both SAPS II and APACHE II were observed to have good calibration and discriminatory power; however, SAPS II had the best prediction power suggesting that it may be a useful tool for clinicians and researchers in assessing the severity of illness and mortality risk in critically ill patients.
Keywords: apache ii; calibration; discrimination; intensive care unit; predictive accuracy; rems; saps ii; sofa.
Copyright © 2024, Mishra et al.
Conflict of interest statement
Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. AIIMS, Raipur issued approval 1631/IEC-AIIMSRPR/2021. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Effectiveness of the sequential organ failure assessment, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, and simplified acute physiology score II prognostic scoring systems in paraquat-poisoned patients in the intensive care unit.Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017 May;36(5):431-437. doi: 10.1177/0960327116657602. Epub 2016 Jul 6. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017. PMID: 27387349
-
[Predictive values of different critical scoring systems for survival rate after discharge in critically ill patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018 May;30(5):456-460. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2018.05.012. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018. PMID: 29764551 Chinese.
-
Intensive care unit scoring systems outperform emergency department scoring systems for mortality prediction in critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study.J Intensive Care. 2014 Jul 1;2:40. doi: 10.1186/2052-0492-2-40. eCollection 2014. J Intensive Care. 2014. PMID: 25960880 Free PMC article.
-
The Simplified Acute Physiology Score III Is Superior to the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II in Predicting Surgical and ICU Mortality in the "Oldest Old".Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2014;2014:934852. doi: 10.1155/2014/934852. Epub 2014 Feb 17. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2014. PMID: 24696680 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Towards better mortality prediction in cancer patients in the ICU: a comparative analysis of prognostic scales: systematic literature review.Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2024 Dec;48(12):e30-e40. doi: 10.1016/j.medine.2024.07.009. Epub 2024 Aug 1. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2024. PMID: 39095268
Cited by
-
Comparison of Intensive Care Scoring Systems in Predicting Overall Mortality of Sepsis.Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jun 29;15(13):1660. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15131660. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40647659 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Higgins TL. Textbook of Critical Care. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. Severity of illness indices and outcome prediction: development and evaluation; p. 206.
-
- The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. Chest. 1991;100:1619–1636. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources