RESUMEN
Background and aim A variety of scoring systems are employed in intensive care units (ICUs) with the objective of predicting patient morbidity and mortality. The present study aimed to compare four different severity assessment scoring systems, namely, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II (SAPS II) to predict prognosis of all patients admitted to a mixed medical ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital in central India. Methods The prospective observational study included 1136 patients aged 18 years or more, admitted to the mixed medical ICU. All patients underwent severity assessment using the four scoring systems, namely APACHE II, SOFA, REMS, and SAPS II, after admission. Predicted mortality was calculated from each of the scores and actual patient outcomes were noted. Receiver operating curve analysis was undertaken to identify the cut-off value of individual scoring systems for predicting mortality with optimum sensitivity and specificity. Calibration and discrimination were employed to ascertain the validity of each scoring model. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses among the study participants were conducted to identify the best scoring system, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results Final analysis was done on 957 study participants (mean (±SD) age-58.4 (±12.9) years; males-62.2%). The mortality rate was 14.7%. APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, and REMS scores were significantly higher among the non-survivors as compared to the survivors (p<0.05). SAPS II was found to have the highest AUC of 0.981 (p<0.001). SAPS II score >58 had 93.6% sensitivity, 94.1% specificity, 73.3% PPV, 98.8% NPV, and 94.0% diagnostic accuracy in predicting mortality. This scoring system also had the best calibration. Binary logistic regression showed that all four scoring systems were significantly associated with ICU mortality. After adjusting for each other, only SAPS II remained significantly associated with ICU mortality. Conclusion Both SAPS II and APACHE II were observed to have good calibration and discriminatory power; however, SAPS II had the best prediction power suggesting that it may be a useful tool for clinicians and researchers in assessing the severity of illness and mortality risk in critically ill patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The technique of anterograde over a retrograde guide is considered to be more reliable and preferable in comparison to only retrograde one, for improving the success rate of retrograde intubation. As the prior technique requires a lengthy guidewire to negotiate the whole channel of a tube guide, we designed a side eye at one end of tube guide, which obviated the above requirement while maintaining the integrity of the whole channel assembly. The efficacy of this modified technique was compared with the conventional one for retrograde intubation procedure. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised fashion, 98 cases posted for surgery of carcinoma buccal mucosa were included in this trial. These cases were randomised to the conventional (Group I) or the modified technique (Group II) for retrograde intubation. Intubation time (first attempt), total number of successful intubations, cause of failures and any associated side effects were recorded and compared between the groups. RESULTS: The total number of successful intubations were significantly higher in group II (95.83%, 46/48 cases) as compared to group I (66.66%, 31/48 cases) (P<0.001). Mean intubation time was 118±22 second in group I versus 124±26 second in group II (P=0.39). The side effects did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Improvising the tube guide resulted in a significant rise in the number of successful intubations through a modified retrograde intubation technique, with no side effects. This should encourage the use of retrograde intubation technique as a first option for difficult airway management.