Early sedation and clinical outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Sedation overuse is frequent and possibly associated with poor outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, the association of early oversedation with clinical outcomes has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the association of early sedation strategies with outcomes of critically ill adult patients under mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: A secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort conducted in 45 Brazilian ICUs, including adult patients requiring ventilatory support and sedation in the first 48 hours of ICU admissions, was performed. Sedation depth was evaluated after 48 hours of MV. Multivariate analysis was used to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were evaluated. Overall, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30.4% and 38.8%, respectively. Deep sedation was observed in 113 patients (35.1%). Longer duration of ventilatory support was observed (7 (4 to 10) versus 5 (3 to 9) days, P = 0.041) and more tracheostomies were performed in the deep sedation group (38.9% versus 22%, P = 0.001) despite similar PaO2/FiO2 ratios and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity. In a multivariate analysis, age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.03), Charlson Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 2.06; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.94), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) score (OR 1.02; CI 95%, 1.00 to 1.04), severe ARDS (OR 1.44; CI 95%, 1.09 to 1.91) and deep sedation (OR 2.36; CI 95%, 1.31 to 4.25) were independently associated with increased hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early deep sedation is associated with adverse outcomes and constitutes an independent predictor of hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients.

SAPS 3, APACHE IV or GRACE: which score to choose for acute coronary syndrome patients in intensive care units?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a common cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Specific prognostic scores have been developed and validated for ACS patients and, among them, GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) has had the best performance. However, intensive care clinicians generally use prognostic scores developed from heterogeneous populations of critically ill patients, such as APACHE IV (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation IV) and SAPS 3 (Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of these three scores in a non-selected population of ACS cases. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective observational study to evaluate three prognostic scores in a population of ACS patients admitted to three general ICUs in private hospitals in São Paulo. METHODS All patients with ACS admitted from July 2008 to December 2009 were considered for inclusion in the study. Score calibration and discrimination were evaluated in relation to predicting hospital mortality. RESULTS A total of 1065 patients were included. The calibration was appropriate for APACHE IV and GRACE but not for SAPS 3. The discrimination was very good for all scores (area under curve of 0.862 for GRACE, 0.860 for APACHE IV and 0.804 for SAPS 3). CONCLUSIONS In this population of ACS patients admitted to ICUs, GRACE and APACHE IV were adequately calibrated, but SAPS 3 was not. All three scores had very good discrimination. GRACE and APACHE IV may be used for predicting mortality risk among ACS patients.

SAPS 3, APACHE IV or GRACE: which score to choose for acute coronary syndrome patients in intensive care units? / SAPS 3, APACHE IV ou GRACE: qual escore escolher para pacientes com sindromes coronarianas agudas na unidade de terapia intensiva?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a common cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Specific prognostic scores have been developed and validated for ACS patients and, among them, GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) has had the best performance. However, intensive care clinicians generally use prognostic scores developed from heterogeneous populations of critically ill patients, such as APACHE IV (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation IV) and SAPS 3 (Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of these three scores in a non-selected population of ACS cases. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective observational study to evaluate three prognostic scores in a population of ACS patients admitted to three general ICUs in private hospitals in São Paulo. METHODS All patients with ACS admitted from July 2008 to December 2009 were considered for inclusion in the study. Score calibration and discrimination were evaluated in relation to predicting hospital mortality. RESULTS A total of 1065 patients were included. The calibration was appropriate for APACHE IV and GRACE but not for SAPS 3. The discrimination was very good for all scores (area under curve of 0.862 for GRACE, 0.860 for APACHE IV and 0.804 for SAPS 3). CONCLUSIONS In this population of ACS patients admitted to ICUs, GRACE and APACHE IV were adequately calibrated, but SAPS 3 was not. All three scores had very good discrimination. GRACE and APACHE IV may be used for predicting mortality risk among ACS patients. .

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO Síndromes coronarianas agudas (SCA) são causa comum de admissão à unidade de terapia intensiva (UTI). Escores prognósticos específicos foram desenvolvidos e validados para pacientes com SCA e, dentre esses, o GRACE (Registro Global de Eventos Coronarianos Agudos) tem tido a melhor performance. No entanto, os intensivistas normalmente usam escores desenvolvidos para populações heterogêneas de pacientes graves, como o APACHE IV (Avaliação de Saúde Crônica e Fisiologia Aguda IV) e o SAPS 3 (Escore Fisiológico Agudo Simplificado 3). O presente estudo objetiva avaliar e comparar a performance desses três escores em uma população não selecionada admitida com diagnóstico de SCA. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL Estudo retrospectivo observacional para a avaliação de três escores prognósticos em uma população admitida com SCA em três UTIs gerais de hospitais particulares em São Paulo. MÉTODOS Todos os pacientes admitidos com SCA de julho de 2008 a dezembro de 2009 foram avaliados para inclusão no estudo. Foram avaliadas a calibração e a discriminação dos escores em predizer a mortalidade hospitalar. RESULTADOS Um total de 1.065 pacientes foi incluído. A calibração foi adequada para o APACHE IV e para o GRACE, mas não para o SAPS 3. A discriminação foi muito boa para todos os escores (área sob a curva de 0,862; 0,860 e 0,804 para GRACE, APACHE IV e SAPS 3). CONCLUSÕES Nesta população de pacientes com SCA admitidos à UTI, os escores GRACE e APACHE IV apresentaram uma calibração adequada, mas o SAPS 3 não. Todos os escores tiveram uma discriminação muito boa. O GRACE e o APACHE IV podem ser usados para pre...

Caution when using prognostic models: a prospective comparison of 3 recent prognostic models.

PURPOSE: Prognostic models have been developed to estimate mortality and to compare outcomes in different intensive care units. However, these models need to be validated before their use in different populations. In this study, we assessed the performance of 3 recently developed general prognostic models (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] 3 and Mortality Probability Model III [MPM(0)-III]) in a population admitted at 3 medical-surgical Brazilian intensive care units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients admitted from July 2008 to December 2009 were evaluated for inclusion in the study. Standardized mortality ratios were calculated for all models. Calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator curve. RESULTS: A total of 5780 patients were included. Inhospital mortality was 9.1%. Discrimination was very good for all models (area under the receiver operator curve for APACHE IV, SAPS 3 and MPM(0)-III was 0.883, 0.855 and 0.840, respectively). APACHE IV showed better discrimination than SAPS 3 and MPM(0)-III (P < .001 for both comparisons). All models calibrated poorly and overestimated hospital mortality (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was 53.7, 134.2, 226.6 for APACHE IV, MPM(0)-III, and SAPS 3, respectively; P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, all models showed poor calibration, while discrimination was very good for all of them. As this has been a common finding in validation studies, caution is warranted when using prognostic models for benchmarking.