Mortality Probability Model III and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II

Background: To develop and compare ICU length-of-stay (LOS) risk-adjustment models using three commonly used mortality or LOS prediction models. Methods: Between 2001 and 2004, we performed a retrospective, observational study of 11,295 ICU patients from 35 hospitals in the California Intensive Care...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chest 2009-07, Vol.136 (1), p.89-101
Hauptverfasser: Vasilevskis, Eduard E., Kuzniewicz, Michael W., Cason, Brian A., Lane, Rondall K., Dean, Mitzi L., Clay, Ted, Rennie, Deborah J., Vittinghoff, Eric, Dudley, R. Adams
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: To develop and compare ICU length-of-stay (LOS) risk-adjustment models using three commonly used mortality or LOS prediction models. Methods: Between 2001 and 2004, we performed a retrospective, observational study of 11,295 ICU patients from 35 hospitals in the California Intensive Care Outcomes Project. We compared the accuracy of the following three LOS models: a recalibrated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV-LOS model; and models developed using risk factors in the mortality probability model III at zero hours (MPM 0 ) and the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II mortality prediction model. We evaluated models by calculating the following: (1) grouped coefficients of determination; (2) differences between observed and predicted LOS across subgroups; and (3) intraclass correlations of observed/expected LOS ratios between models. Results: The grouped coefficients of determination were APACHE IV with coefficients recalibrated to the LOS values of the study cohort (APACHE IVrecal) [ R 2 = 0.422], mortality probability model III at zero hours (MPM 0 III) [ R 2 = 0.279], and simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) [ R 2 = 0.008]. For each decile of predicted ICU LOS, the mean predicted LOS vs the observed LOS was significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) for three, two, and six deciles using APACHE IVrecal, MPM 0 III, and SAPS II, respectively. Plots of the predicted vs the observed LOS ratios of the hospitals revealed a threefold variation in LOS among hospitals with high model correlations. Conclusions: APACHE IV and MPM 0 III were more accurate than SAPS II for the prediction of ICU LOS. APACHE IV is the most accurate and best calibrated model. Although it is less accurate, MPM 0 III may be a reasonable option if the data collection burden or the treatment effect bias is a consideration.
ISSN:0012-3692
1931-3543
DOI:10.1378/chest.08-2591