Cer�n DUW, Esponda PJ, Borboya PM, V�zquez MJP

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 21
Paginas: 50-59
Archivo PDF: 392.46 Kb.

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Comparar el rendimiento de cuatro sistemas de predicci�n de mortalidad: APACHE II, SAPS II, MPM II-0 y MPM II-24.
Dise�o: Estudio prospectivo de una cohorte.
Lugar: Tres unidades de terapia intensiva mexicanas.
Enfermos: 771 enfermos adultos.
Intervenciones: ninguna.
Mediciones y resultados principales: �rea por debajo de la curva ROC (capacidad discriminativa): APACHE II: 0.87, SAPS II: 0.88, MPM II-0: 0.82, MPM II-24: 0.88. Hubo diferencia estad�sticamente significante entre el �rea de MPM II-0 y los dem�s sistemas. Prueba de bondad de ajuste (calibraci�n): APACHE II: p › 0.2, SAPS II: p › 0.9, MPM II-0: p › 0.02, MPM II-24: p › 0.7.
Conclusi�n: Los cuatro modelos tienen una buena calibraci�n y capacidad discriminativa. MPM II-0 tuvo los resultados menos ventajosos.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP et al. APACHEAcute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981;9: 591-597.

2. Le Gall J, Loirat P, Alperovitch A et al. A simplified acute physiology score for ICU patients. Crit Care Med 1984;13: 818-829.

3. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al. APACHE II: A severity, of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985; 13: 818-829.

4. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Pastides H et al. A method for predicting survival and mortality of ICU patients using objectively, derived weights. Crit Care Med 1985; 13: 519-525.

5. Knaus WA, Wagner, Draper EA et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for criticallyill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991; 100: 1619-1636.

6. Le Gall J, 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.

7. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J et al. Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an International cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA 1993; 270: 2478-2486.

8. S�nchez-Vel�zquez LD. Capacidad discriminativa y costo de los sistemas de calificaci�n de la gravedad de la enfermedad en la unidad de terapia intensiva. (En prensa).

9. Cer�n U, Sierra A, Mart�nez R, V�zquez JP. Base de datos para el control de calidad y utilizaci�n de recursos en la Unidad de Terapia Intensiva. Rev Mex Med Crit y Ter Int 1996; 10: 105-201.

10. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36.

11. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-843.

12. Lemeshow S, Hosmer DW. A review of goddness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 110: 847-864.

13. Knaus WA, Le Gall GJ, Wagner DP et al. A comparison of ntensive care in the USA and France. Lancet 1982; II:642-646.

14. Zimmerman JE, Knaus WA, Judson JA et al. Patient selection for intensive care: A comparison of New Zealand and United States hospitals. Crit Care Med 1988; 16: 318-326.

15. Sirio C, Tajimi K, Tase C et al. An initial comparison of intensive care in Japan and the United States. Crit Care Med 1992; 20: 1207-1215.

16. Teik O, Hutchinson R, Short S et al. Verification of the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation scoring system in Hong Kong. Intensive Care Med 1993; 21: 698-705.

17. Zimmerman JE, Douglas P, Wagner DP et al. Improving intensive care unit discharge decisions: Supplementing physician judgment with predictions of next day risk for life support. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 1373-1384.

18. Rapoport J, Teres D, Lemeshow S, Gehlbach S. A method for assessing the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of intensive care units: a multicenter inception cohor study. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 1385-1391.

19. Castella X, Artigas A, Bion J et al. A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: Results of a multicenter multinational study. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: 1327-1335.

20. Moreno R, Morais P. Outcome prediction in intensive care: results of a prospective, multicentre. Portugueses study. Int Care Med 1997; 23: 177-186.

21. 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.