A comparison between the APACHE II and Charlson Index Score for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patients
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Susan Quach (1)
Deirdre A Hennessy (1) (2)
Peter Faris (1)
Andrew Fong (1)
Hude Quan (1)
Christopher Doig (1) (2) - 刊名：BMC Health Services Research
- 出版年：2009
- 出版时间：December 2009
- 年：2009
- 卷：9
- 期：1
- 全文大小：820KB
- 参考文献：1. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Avrunin JS, / et al.: Predicting the Outcome of Intensive Care Unit Patients. / JASA 1988, 83:348鈥?56.
2. Knaus W, Zimmerman J, Wagner D, / et al.: APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluations: A physiologically based classification system. / Crit Care Med 1981, 9:591鈥?. CrossRef
3. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, / et al.: Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care patients. / JAMA 1993, 270:2478鈥?6. CrossRef
4. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, / et al.: ApacheII: A severity of disease classification system. / Crit Care Med 1985, 13:818鈥?9. CrossRef
5. Knaus W, Wagner D, Draper E, / et al.: The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. / Chest 1991, 100:1619鈥?6. CrossRef
6. Zimmerman J, Kramer A, Douglas S, Malila F: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE IV): Hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients. / Crit Care Med 2006, 34:1297鈥?10. CrossRef
7. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F: A New Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) Based on a European/North American Multicentre Study. / JAMA 1993, 270:2957鈥?963. CrossRef
8. Moreno RP, Metnitz PGH, Almeida E, / et al.: SAPS 3 鈥?From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. / Int Care Med 2005, 31:1345鈥?5. CrossRef
9. Sibbald William, Bion Julian, SA R: Evaluating Critical Care-Using Health Services Research to Improve Quality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 2001.
10. Charlson Mary E, Peter Pompei, Ales Kathy L, / et al.: A new method of classifying prognostic Comorbidity in Longitudinal Studies: Development and Validation. / J Chron Dis 1987, 40:373鈥?83. CrossRef
11. Poses RM, McClish DK, Smith WR, / et al.: Prediction of Survival of Critically Ill Patients by Admission Comorbidity. / J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:743鈥?47. CrossRef
12. Norena M, Wong H, Thompson WD, / et al.: Adjustment of intensive care unit outcomes for severity of illness and comorbidity scores. / J Crit Care 2006, 21:142鈥?50. CrossRef
13. Needham DM, Scales DC, Laupacis A, / et al.: A systematic review of the Charlson comorbidity index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. / J Crit Care 2005, 20:12鈥?9. CrossRef
14. Doig CJ, Zygun DA, Fick GH, / et al.: Study of clinical course of organ dysfunction in intensive care. / Crit Care Med 2004, 32:384鈥?0. CrossRef
15. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, / et al.: Coding Alogrithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9 CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data. / Medical Care 2005, 43:1130鈥?. CrossRef
16. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA: Adapting a clinical comorbidity Index for use with ICD-9CM Administrative Databases. / J Clin Epidemiol 1992, 45:613鈥?19. CrossRef
17. D'Hoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C: Practical Considerations on the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with Administrative Data Bases. / J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:1429鈥?433. CrossRef
18. Iezzoni L: Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. / 3 Edition Health Administration Press 2003.
19. Hosmer D, Lemeshow SNY: Applied logistic regression. / 1 Edition John Wiley & Sons 1989.
20. Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, / et al.: Regression Methods in Biostatistics. San Fransico:Springer 2004.
21. Harrell FE: Regression Modeling Strategies. Nashville:Springer 2001.
22. Livingston BM, Mackirdy FN, Howie JC, Jones R, Norrie JD: Assessment of the performance of five intensive care scoring models within a large Scottish database. / Crit Care Med 2000, 28:1820鈥?. CrossRef
23. Ho KM, Finn J, Knuiman M, Webb SAR: Combining multiple comorbidities with Acute Physiology Score to predict hospital mortality of critically ill patients: a linked data cohort study. / Anaesth 2007, 62:1095鈥?100. CrossRef
24. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/9/129/prepub - 作者单位：Susan Quach (1)
Deirdre A Hennessy (1) (2)
Peter Faris (1)
Andrew Fong (1)
Hude Quan (1)
Christopher Doig (1) (2)
1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
文摘
Background Risk adjustment and mortality prediction in studies of critical care are usually performed using acuity of illness scores, such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), which emphasize physiological derangement. Common risk adjustment systems used in administrative datasets, like the Charlson index, are entirely based on the presence of co-morbid illnesses. The purpose of this study was to compare the discriminative ability of the Charlson index to the APACHE II in predicting hospital mortality in adult multisystem ICU patients. Methods This was a population-based cohort design. The study sample consisted of adult (>17 years of age) residents of the Calgary Health Region admitted to a multisystem ICU between April 2002 and March 2004. Clinical data were collected prospectively and linked to hospital outcome data. Multiple regression analyses were used to compare the performance of APACHE II and the Charlson index. Results The Charlson index was a poor predictor of mortality (C = 0.626). There was minimal difference between a baseline model containing age, sex and acute physiology score (C = 0.74) and models containing either chronic health points (C = 0.76) or Charlson index variations (C = 0.75, 0.76, 0.77). No important improvement in prediction occurred when the Charlson index was added to the full APACHE II model (C = 0.808 to C = 0.813). Conclusion The Charlson index does not perform as well as the APACHE II in predicting hospital mortality in ICU patients. However, when acuity of illness scores are unavailable or are not recorded in a standard way, the Charlson index might be considered as an alternative method of risk adjustment and therefore facilitate comparisons between intensive care units.