Abstract
Objective
To compare 4 general severity classification scoring systems concerning prognosis of outcome in 123 liver transplant recipients. The compared scoring systems were: the mortality prediction model (admission model and 24 h model); the simplified acute physiology score; the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (Apache II) and the acute organ systems failre score.
Design
Retrospective, consecutive sample.
Setting
Adult intensive care unit in a university hospital.
Patients
123 adult liver allograft recipients after admission to the intensive care unit.
Measurements and main results
The scoring systems were calculated as described by the authors to classify the severity of illness after admission of the allograft recipients to the intensive care unit. The mean and median values of survivors and the group of patients, that died during hospital stay were compared. Receiver-operating characteristics were plotted for all scoring systems and the areas under the curves of receiver-operating characteristics were calculated. The predictive value of the 4 scoring systems was tested using a variety of sensitivity analyses. The mortality prediction model (24 h model) was found to have a high significance (p<0.001) in predicting mortality and showed the greatest area under the curve (0.829). Simplified acute physiology score (p<0.001) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (Apache II) (p<0.01) had a high significance as well, but did not hit the level of prognosis of mortality prediction model, as shown in the area under the curves. Accordingly, sensitivity was highest in MPM-24 h (83%), followed by SAPS (72%) and Apache II (71%). MPM-24h had a total misclassification rate of 22% (SAPS=32%, Apache II=33%). MPM-admission failed in predicting mortality (sensitivity=52%). Organ systems failure score seemed not to be useful in liver transplant recipients.
Conclusion
General disease classification systems, such as the mortality prediction model, simplified acute physiology score or acute physiology and chronic health evaluation are good mortality prediction models in patients after liver transplantation. We suggest that there is no need for improvement of a special scoring system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) Apache II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829
le Gall JR, Loirat P, Alperovitch A, Glasser P, Ganthil C, Mathieu D, Mercier P, Thomas R, Villers D (1984) A simplified acute physiology score for ICU patients. Crit Care Med 12:975–977
Lemeshow S, Teres D, Pastides H et al (1985) A method for predicting survival and mortality of ICU patients using objectively derived weights. Crit Care Med 13:519–525
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) Prognosis in acute organ-system failure, Ann Surg 202:685–693
Bams JL, Miranda DR (1985) Outcome and costs of intensive care. Intensive Care Med 11:234–241
Bein Th, Forst H, Pratschke E (1992) Apache-II-scoring in the liver transplant recipient. Intensive Care Med 18:60–61
Lemeshow S, Teres D, Avrunin JS, Gage R (1988) Refining intensive care unit outcome prediction by using changing probabilities of mortality. Crit Care Med 16:470–477
Teasdale G, Jennet B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet II:81–84
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmer JE (1986) An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. Ann Intern Med 104:410–418
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843
Rutledge R, Fakhry SM, Rutherford EJ et al (1991) Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (Apache II) score and outcome in the surgical intensive care unit: an analysis of multiple intervention and outcome variables in 1,238 patients. Crit Care Med 19:1048–1053
Moreau R, Soupison T, Vauquelin P et al (1989) Comparison of two simplified severity scores (SAPS and Apache II) for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care Med 17:409–413
Maher ER, Robinson KN, Scoble JE et al (1989) Prognosis of critically-ill patients with acute renal failure: Apache II Score and other predictive factors. Q J Med 269:857–866
Arregui LM, Moyes DG, Lipman J et al (1991) Comparison of disease severity scoring systems in septic shock Crit Care Med 19:1165–1171
Rhee KJ, Baxt WG, Mackenzie NH et al (1990) Apache-II-scoring in the injured patient. Crit Care Med 18: 827–830
Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Van Thiel DV (1989) Liver transplantation. N Engl J Med 321:1014–1018
Gordon RD, Fung J, Tzakis AG, Todo S, Stieber A, Bronsther O, Martin M, Van Thiel DH, Starzl TE (1991) Liver transplantation at the University of Pittsburgh, 1984 to 1990. Clin Transplant 4:105–117
Park GR, Gomez-Arau J, Lindop MJ, Klinck JR, Williams R, Calne RY (1989) Mortality during intensive care after orthotopic liver transplantation. Anaesthesia 44:959–963
Brems JJ, Hiatt JR, Colonna II JO, El-Khoukry G, Quinones WJ, Ramming KP, Ziomek S, Busuttil RW (1987) Variables influencing the outcome following orthotopic liver transplantation. Arch Surg 122:1109–1111
Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA et al (1991) The Apache III prognostic system. Chest 100:1619–1636
LeGall JR and ICU Scoring Group (1992) Development of a new severity score, the SAPS II, from an European North American Study. Intensive Care Med 18 [Suppl 2]:P253
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bein, T., Fröhlich, D., Pömsl, J. et al. The predictive value of four scoring systems in liver transplant recipients. Intensive Care Med 21, 32–37 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02425151
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02425151