Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients.

George Washington University, Washington, Washington, D.C., United States
Critical Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 06/2006; 34(5):1297-310. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215112.84523.F0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To improve the accuracy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) method for predicting hospital mortality among critically ill adults and to evaluate changes in the accuracy of earlier APACHE models.
: Observational cohort study.
A total of 104 intensive care units (ICUs) in 45 U.S. hospitals.
A total of 131,618 consecutive ICU admissions during 2002 and 2003, of which 110,558 met inclusion criteria and had complete data.
We developed APACHE IV using ICU day 1 information and a multivariate logistic regression procedure to estimate the probability of hospital death for randomly selected patients who comprised 60% of the database. Predictor variables were similar to those in APACHE III, but new variables were added and different statistical modeling used. We assessed the accuracy of APACHE IV predictions by comparing observed and predicted hospital mortality for the excluded patients (validation set). We tested discrimination and used multiple tests of calibration in aggregate and for patient subgroups. APACHE IV had good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.88) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic = 16.9, p = .08). For 90% of 116 ICU admission diagnoses, the ratio of observed to predicted mortality was not significantly different from 1.0. We also used the validation data set to compare the accuracy of APACHE IV predictions to those using APACHE III versions developed 7 and 14 yrs previously. There was little change in discrimination, but aggregate mortality was systematically overestimated as model age increased. When examined across disease, predictive accuracy was maintained for some diagnoses but for others seemed to reflect changes in practice or therapy.
APACHE IV predictions of hospital mortality have good discrimination and calibration and should be useful for benchmarking performance in U.S. ICUs. The accuracy of predictive models is dynamic and should be periodically retested. When accuracy deteriorates they should be revised and updated.


Available from: Andrew A. Kramer, Jun 06, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Persons over 80 represents 40% of patients in French emergency services. We assessed the appropriateness of these admissions and sought to identify risk factors for inappropriate hospital stays. Methods The appropriateness of admission was assessed in a prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study in eight hospitals in France by means of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (French version, AEPf) during two non-consecutive periods of four weeks in 2010. We analyzed admission of patients aged 80 and over who were admitted to the hospital after a stay in the emergency department of the same hospital. Demographics and morbidity factors were recorded as were administrative hospitalization data to identify risk factors associated with inappropriate admissions. We also evaluated the economic impact of inappropriate admissions. For cost analysis, all variables were obtained from anonymized hospital reports of a diagnosis-related group system used for funding of the hospitals by health insurance. Results During two different periods, 1577 patients were included. 139 (8.8%) hospital admissions were inappropriate according to explicit criteria of the AEPf, but 18 of these (1.1%) were in fact considered appropriate by the physician responsible for the admission, leading to 121 (7.7%) inappropriate admissions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients with heart disease were less often subject to inappropriate admission (odds ratio OR= 0.36 [0.23; 0.56], p Conclusion Inappropriate emergency admissions of older patients were infrequent. None of the geriatric syndromes were linked with the phenomenon and principle causes were severity of illness, mention of a cardiac disease, unclear pattern of consultation and institutionalized way of life.
    The Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s12603-015-0489-9 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hintergrund Score-Systeme gehören zum Alltag der Intensivmedizin. Diverse Aspekte führen zu einer Sonderstellung herzchirurgischer Patienten. Daher können einige etablierte Systeme wie Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS), Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) und Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score nur unter Vorbehalt in diesem Kollektiv angewendet werden. In den vergangenen Jahren wurden spezifische Modelle entwickelt - darunter der Cardiac Surgery Score (CASUS) -, die auf das herzchirurgische Patientengut abgestimmt sind. Ziel der Arbeit Diese Arbeit gibt einen Überblick über konventionelle Score-Systeme der Intensivmedizin und zeigt ihre Vor- und Nachteile im Vergleich zu spezialisierten Modellen der Herzchirurgie auf. Material und Methoden Es werden 7 Score-Systeme vorgestellt und anhand eines zufällig ausgewählten Beispielpatienten einer prospektiven, herzchirurgischen Datenbank mit über 5200 Patienten besprochen. Ergebnisse Die beiden neuen Versionen des CASUS erfassen die Ausprägung von Organdysfunktionen differenziert und in einem zeitlichen Kontext. Mit beiden Modellen ist eine akkurate Vorhersage der Sterblichkeit in Prozent möglich. Hingegen kann die Schwere einer Erkrankung durch die konventionellen Score-Systeme nicht präzise abgebildet werden. Diskussion Neben der Beurteilung des postoperativen Intensivbehandlungsverlaufs kann mithilfe von Score-Systemen die Erkrankungsschwere abgeleitet werden. Darüber hinaus können Entscheidungsfindungen am Krankenbett ebenso erleichtert werden, wie eine Überlebensprognose, das Ressourcen-Management und die Qualitätssicherung.
    Zeitschrift für Herz- Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 04/2015; 29(2):83-89. DOI:10.1007/s00398-014-1132-5
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In critical care observational studies, when clinicians administer different treatments to sicker patients, any treatment comparisons will be confounded by differences in severity of illness between patients. We sought to investigate the extent that observational studies assessing treatments are at risk of incorrectly concluding such treatments are ineffective or even harmful due to inadequate risk adjustment. We performed Monte Carlo simulations of observational studies evaluating the effect of a hypothetical treatment on mortality in critically ill patients. We set the treatment to have either no association with mortality or to have a truly beneficial effect, but more often administered to sicker patients. We varied the strength of the treatment's true effect, strength of confounding, study size, patient population, and accuracy of the severity of illness risk-adjustment (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, AUROC). We measured rates in which studies made inaccurate conclusions about the treatment's true effect due to confounding, and the measured odds ratios for mortality for such false associations. Simulated observational studies employing adequate risk-adjustment were generally able to measure a treatment's true effect. As risk-adjustment worsened, rates of studies incorrectly concluding the treatment provided no benefit or harm increased, especially when sample size was large (n = 10,000). Even in scenarios of only low confounding, studies using the lower accuracy risk-adjustors (AUROC < 0.66) falsely concluded that a beneficial treatment was harmful. Measured odds ratios for mortality of 1.4 or higher were possible when the treatment's true beneficial effect was an odds ratio for mortality of 0.6 or 0.8. Large observational studies confounded by severity of illness have a high likelihood of obtaining incorrect results even after employing conventionally "acceptable" levels of risk-adjustment, with large effect sizes that may be construed as true associations. Reporting the AUROC of the risk-adjustment used in the analysis may facilitate an evaluation of a study's risk for confounding.
    Critical care (London, England) 04/2015; 19(1):195. DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0923-8