Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T04:09:58.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of intensive care unit performance in Lithuania using the SAPS II system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2004

S. Vosylius ,
J. Sipylaite  and
J. Ivaskevicius
S. Vosylius
Affiliation:
Vilnius University, Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vilnius, Lithuania
J. Sipylaite
Affiliation:
Vilnius University, Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vilnius, Lithuania
J. Ivaskevicius
Affiliation:
Vilnius University, Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vilnius, Lithuania
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: Outcome prediction and evaluation of intensive care unit (ICU) performance using severity of illness scoring is a tool for the estimation of effectiveness and quality of intensive care. We used the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II system to evaluate ICU performance.

Methods: The present study is a prospective observational study in an ICU at Vilnius University Emergency Hospital, Lithuania. The observed death rate was compared with the predicted death rate calculated using SAPS II system. The ability of the SAPS II prognostic system to predict the probability of hospital mortality was assessed with discrimination and calibration measures.

Results: Two-thousand-and-sixty-seven patients consecutively admitted to the ICU were studied. The median SAPS II score on the first ICU day was 29. The SAPS II system showed a good ability to separate those patients predicted to live from those predicted to die (an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.883). The calibration curve demonstrated under-prediction of the actual death rate (Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, χ2 = 56.98; df = 8; P < 0.001). The observed mortality was higher than predicted by the SAPS II equation (observed to predicted ratio is 1.28).

Conclusions: The SAPS II system is a useful tool for the assessment of ICU performance. This system demonstrated a good ability of discrimination, but an under-prediction of the actual mortality rate, in Lithuanian ICUs.

Keywords

INTENSIVE CARE UNITSOUTCOME ASSESSMENTHEALTH STATUS INDICATOR, severity of illness indexMORTALITY, hospital mortality
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 21 , Issue 8 , August 2004 , pp. 619 - 624
Copyright
2004 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Teres D, Lemeshow S. When to customize a severity model. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25: 140–142.Google Scholar
Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993; 270: 2957–2963.Google Scholar
Civetta JM, Colton T. How to read a medical article and understand basic statistics. In: Civetta JM, Taylor RW, Kirby RR, eds. Critical Care, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997: 3–20.
Apolone G, Bertolini G, D'Amico R, et al. The performance of SAPS II in a cohort of patients admitted to 99 Italian ICUs: results from GiViTI. Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli interventi in Terapia Intensiva. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 1368–1378.Google Scholar
Moreno R, Morais P. Outcome prediction in intensive care: results of a prospective, multicentre, Portuguese study. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 177–186.Google Scholar
Moreno R, Reis Miranda DR, Fidler V, Van Schilfgaarde R. Evaluation of two outcome prediction models on an independent database. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 50–61.Google Scholar
Metnitz PGH, Vesely H, Valentin A, et al. Evaluation of an interdisciplinary data set for national intensive care unit assessment. Crit Care Med 1999; 27: 1486–1491.Google Scholar
Timsit JF, Fosse JP, Troche G, et al. Accuracy of a composite score using daily SAPS II and LOD scores for predicting hospital mortality in ICU patients hospitalized for more than 72 h. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27: 1012–1021.Google Scholar
Bodmann KF, Ehlers B, Habel U, et al. Epidemiological and prognostic data from 2054 patients of an internal medicine intensive care unit. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1997; 122: 919–925.Google Scholar
Schuster HP, Schuster EP, Ritschel P, Wilts S, Bodmann KF. The ability of the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) to predict outcome in coronary care patients. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 1056–1061.Google Scholar
Markgraf R, Deutschinoff G, Pientka L, Scholten T. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluations II and III and simplified acute physiology score II: a prospective cohort study evaluating these methods to predict outcome in a German interdisciplinary intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 26–33.Google Scholar
Katsaragakis S, Papadimitropoulos K, Antonakis P, Stergiopoulos S, Konstadoulakis MM, Androulakis G. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) and simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) scoring systems in a single Greek intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 426–432.Google Scholar
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: 1820–1827.Google Scholar
Metnitz PGH, Valentin A, Vesely H, et al. Prognostic performance and customization of the SAPS II: results of a multicenter Austrian study. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25: 192–197.Google Scholar
Nouira S, Belghith M, Elatrous S, et al. Predictive value of severity scoring systems: comparison of four models in Tunisian adult intensive care units. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 852–859.Google Scholar
Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP. Prognostic systems in intensive care: how do you interpret an observed mortality that is higher than expected? Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 258–260.Google Scholar
Bastos PG, Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, et al. The importance of technology for achieving superior outcomes from intensive care. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 664–669.Google Scholar
Glance LG, Osler T, Shinozaki T. Effect of varying the case mix on the standardized mortality ratio and W statistic. A simulation study. Chest 2000; 117: 1112–1117.Google Scholar
Bosman RJ, van Straaten HM, Zandstra DF. The use of intensive care information systems alters outcome prediction. Intensive Care Med 1998; 24: 953–958.Google Scholar
Arts D, de Keizer N, Scheffer G-J, de Jonge E. Quality of data collected for severity of illness scores in the Dutch national intensive care evaluation (NICE) registry. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28: 656–659.Google Scholar
Apolone G. The state of research on multipurpose severity of illness scoring systems: are we on target? Intensive Care Med 2000; 26: 1727–1729.Google Scholar