Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 March;79(3) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 March;79(3):257-63

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 March;79(3):257-63

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Validation of predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction score compared with standard severity scores in predicting hospital outcome in septic shock patients

Khwannimit B., Bhurayanontachai R.

Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

Background: The aim of this study was to validate and compare the performance of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ failure (SAPS 3 PIRO) score with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores in predicting hospital outcome in septic shock patients.
Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted over a six-year period in the mixed medical-coronary care unit of a tertiary referral university teaching hospital. The performance of the severity scores was evaluated by discrimination, calibration and overall performance.
Results: Eight hundred and eighty patients with septic shock were enrolled. Hospital mortality rate was 57.4%. Community-acquired infections accounted for 57.2%. The SAPS 3 PIRO showed the best discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.863 (95% confidence intervals, 0.838-0.889). The AUC of SAPS 3 PIRO score was statistically greater than APACHE II (0.82, P=0.001), SAPS II (0.819, P=0.001) and SAPS 3 (0.817, P=0.003). The calibration of all scores was poor, with the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit H and C statistics <0.05. The SAPS 3 PIRO score was the best overall performance by a Brier score of 0.167.
Conclusion: The SAPS 3 PIRO score provided better discrimination than the APACHE II, SAPS II and SAPS 3 but had poor calibration in our septic shock patients. SAPS 3 PIRO could be used regarding risk stratification in septic shock patients, however, this score needed to be adapted and modified with new parameters for improving the performance.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page