Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on October 9, 2008
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008 101(6):798-803; doi:10.1093/bja/aen291
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/6/798    most recent
aen291v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sakr, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sakr, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit

Y. Sakr1, C. Krauss1, A. C. K. B. Amaral2, A. Réa-Neto2, M. Specht1, K. Reinhart1 and G. Marx1,*

1 Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Friedrich-Schiller-University Hospital, Erlanger Allee 103, 07743 Jena, Germany
2 Department of Critical Care, Hospital Brasilia, Rede ESHO, Brasilia, Brazil

* Corresponding author. E-mail: gernot.marx{at}med.uni-jena.de

Background: The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 has recently been developed, but not yet validated in surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We compared the performance of SAPS 3 with SAPS II and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score in surgical ICU patients.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from all patients admitted to a German university hospital postoperative ICU between August 2004 and December 2005 were analysed. The probability of ICU mortality was calculated for SAPS II, APACHE II, adjusted APACHE II (adj-APACHE II), SAPS 3, and SAPS 3 customized for Europe [C-SAPS3 (Eu)] using standard formulas. To improve calibration of the prognostic models, a first-level customization was performed, using logistic regression on the original scores, and the corresponding probability of ICU death was calculated for the customized scores (C-SAPS II, C-SAPS 3, and C-APACHE II).

Results: The study included 1851 patients. Hospital mortality was 9%. Hosmer and Lemeshow statistics showed poor calibration for SAPS II, APACHE II, adj-APACHE II, SAPS 3, and C-SAPS 3 (Eu), but good calibration for C-SAPS II, C-APACHE II, and C-SAPS 3. Discrimination was generally good for all models [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.78 (C-APACHE II) to 0.89 (C-SAPS 3)]. The C-SAPS 3 score appeared to have the best calibration curve on visual inspection.

Conclusions: In this group of surgical ICU patients, the performance of SAPS 3 was similar to that of APACHE II and SAPS II. Customization improved the calibration of all prognostic models.

Keywords: intensive care; scoring systems, prognosis; surgery; surgery, postoperative period


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in BJA:

In the December 2008 BJA...

BJA 2008 101: NP. [Extract] [Full Text]  





Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.