1989
DOI: 10.1097/00132586-198904000-00032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Clinical Assessment with APACHE II for Predicting Mortality Risk in Patients Admitted to a Medical Intensive Care Unit

Abstract: The APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) system has been widely used as an objective means of predicting outcome in critically ill patients. We

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
63
0
2

Year Published

1992
1992
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
6
63
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In our patient cohort, high levels of IL-18 at admission correlated with increased inhospital mortality. Although our analysis is limited by not measuring cytokines previously associated with mortality (i.e., IL-6, IL-8) (4,39,40), IL-18 level is associated with lactate levels, a clinically established biomarker, and APACHE II scores, a severity indicator, that have both been associated with ICU morbidity and mortality (41)(42)(43). Future studies will be needed to compare the predictive power of multiple biomarkers in tandem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our patient cohort, high levels of IL-18 at admission correlated with increased inhospital mortality. Although our analysis is limited by not measuring cytokines previously associated with mortality (i.e., IL-6, IL-8) (4,39,40), IL-18 level is associated with lactate levels, a clinically established biomarker, and APACHE II scores, a severity indicator, that have both been associated with ICU morbidity and mortality (41)(42)(43). Future studies will be needed to compare the predictive power of multiple biomarkers in tandem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If long-term outcome is the desired end point, acute measures, such as admission APS, may have to be substituted for more sensitive indicators of chronic health, such as the Charlson index [25]. Objective assessment of outcome using scoring systems has been shown to be no better, and indeed no worse, than clinical estimates provided by physicians [26,27]. The quest for accurate outcome prediction continues and, because of the high cost of intensive care, remains a worthwhile goal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An acceptable level of accuracy for individual clinical decision-making has not been established. Clinical assessment of risk of death has been shown to be more accurate than APACHE I1 in surgical intensive care patients [7] and of the same order of accuracy in medical intensive care patients as APACHE I1 admission scoring [8]. Prognostic scoring systems continue to be developed and their unbiased and reproducible prediction of individual mortality may soon surpass clinical assessment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%