Rm. Poses et al., PREDICTION OF SURVIVAL OF CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS BY ADMISSION COMORBIDITY, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 49(7), 1996, pp. 743-747
Citations number
28
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath","Medicine, General & Internal
The objective of this study was to determine how well the Charlson ind
ex of comorbidity would predict mortality of critically ill patients;
and how the predictive ability of the index would compare with that of
the comorbidity component (Chronic Health Points) of the APACHE II sy
stem. This prospective cohort study included in its setting an intensi
ve care unit (ICU) and intermediate ICU (IICU) in a teaching hospital.
Patients included a previously assembled inception cohort of 201 pati
ents consecutively admitted to either unit, followed until death or di
scharge from the hospital, excluding patients admitted after coronary
artery bypass grafting, for planned dialysis, or transferred to the II
CU from another intensive care unit. Main outcome measures were record
ed as death in hospital versus survival at discharge. For each patient
we had prospectively obtained all data necessary to predict the proba
bility of in hospital death using the APACHE II system, and to classif
y comorbidity using the Charlson index. The Charlson index had signifi
cant ability to discriminate between patients who would live and who w
ould die (ROC curve area = 0.67, SE = 0.05). The Chronic Health Points
component of APACHE II had no significant discriminating ability (ROC
area 0.57, SE = 0.05), although the full APACHE II system was an exce
llent predictor (area = 0.87, SE = 0.04). Logistic regression analyses
suggested that the Charlson index could contribute significant (p = 0
.03) prognostic information to that obtained from the components of AP
ACHE II other than Chronic Health, i.e., acute physiological derangeme
nt, age, and reason for admission, but the Chronic Health Points compo
nent of APACHE II could not so contribute to the rest of APACHE II (p
= 0.19). Our conclusion is that use of the detailed information about
comorbidity captured by the Charlson index could improve prognostic pr
edictions even for critically ill patients.