Mortality probability model III and simplified acute physiology score II: assessing their value in predicting length of stay and comparison to APACHE IV
- PMID: 19363210
- PMCID: PMC3198495
- DOI: 10.1378/chest.08-2591
Mortality probability model III and simplified acute physiology score II: assessing their value in predicting length of stay and comparison to APACHE IV
Abstract
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 <or= 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.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have reported to the ACCP that no significant conflicts of interest exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Variation in ICU risk-adjusted mortality: impact of methods of assessment and potential confounders.Chest. 2008 Jun;133(6):1319-1327. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-3061. Epub 2008 Apr 10. Chest. 2008. PMID: 18403657
-
Do Serially Recorded Prognostic Scores Predict Outcome Better Than One-Time Recorded Score on Admission? A Prospective Study in Adult Intensive Care Patients.J Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;32(8):480-486. doi: 10.1177/0885066615625937. Epub 2016 Jan 13. J Intensive Care Med. 2017. PMID: 26768423
-
A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, multinational study. The European/North American Severity Study Group.Crit Care Med. 1995 Aug;23(8):1327-35. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199508000-00005. Crit Care Med. 1995. PMID: 7634802 Clinical Trial.
-
Severity scoring in the critically ill: part 1--interpretation and accuracy of outcome prediction scoring systems.Chest. 2012 Jan;141(1):245-252. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-0330. Chest. 2012. PMID: 22215834 Review.
-
ICU severity of illness scores: APACHE, SAPS and MPM.Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014 Oct;20(5):557-65. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000135. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014. PMID: 25137401 Review.
Cited by
-
Prediction of prolonged length of stay on the intensive care unit in severely injured patients-a registry-based multivariable analysis.Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jun 5;11:1358205. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1358205. eCollection 2024. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 38903820 Free PMC article.
-
Is it Time to Develop an Indian Sepsis-related Mortality Prediction Score?Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024 Apr;28(4):320-322. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24693. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024. PMID: 38585324 Free PMC article.
-
Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthc Inform Res. 2023 Oct;29(4):301-314. doi: 10.4258/hir.2023.29.4.301. Epub 2023 Oct 31. Healthc Inform Res. 2023. PMID: 37964452 Free PMC article.
-
Telemedicine Critical Care-Mediated Mortality Reductions in Lower-Performing Patient Diagnosis Groups: A Prospective, Before and After Study.Crit Care Explor. 2023 Sep 22;5(10):e0979. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000979. eCollection 2023 Oct. Crit Care Explor. 2023. PMID: 37753237 Free PMC article.
-
Forecasting ICU Census by Combining Time Series and Survival Models.Crit Care Explor. 2023 May 5;5(5):e0912. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000912. eCollection 2023 May. Crit Care Explor. 2023. PMID: 37168689 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Halpern NA, Pastores SM, Greenstein RJ. Critical care medicine in the United States 1985–2000: an analysis of bed numbers, use, and costs. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1254–1259. - PubMed
-
- Rapoport J, Teres D, Lemeshow S, et al. Explaining variability of cost using a severity-of-illness measure for ICU patients. Med Care. 1990;28:338–348. - PubMed
-
- Rapoport J, Teres D, Lemeshow S, et al. A method for assessing the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of intensive care units: a multicenter inception cohort study. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:1385–1391. - PubMed
-
- Render ML, Kim HM, Deddens J, et al. Variation in outcomes in Veterans Affairs intensive care units with a computerized severity measure. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:930–939. - PubMed
-
- Rosenthal GE, Harper DL, Quinn LM, et al. Severity-adjusted mortality and length of stay in teaching and nonteaching hospitals: results of a regional study. JAMA. 1997;278:485–490. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
