OBJECTIVE: A prospective study to compare the power of the Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring systems to predict survival, in patients admitted to the neurological intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: Clinical data from 521 consecutive NICU patients were collected during the first 24 h of admission and were used to compare the predictive power of both scoring systems. RESULTS: The observed mortality rate was 10.0% compared with predicted mortality rates of 7.2% and 4.8% according to LODS and APACHE II, respectively. Both scoring systems had excellent discrimination but LODS had superior calibration. CONCLUSION: The LODS scoring system was more stable than the APACHE II scoring system in the NICU setting.
RapoportJTeresDLemeshowS: A method for assessing the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of intensive care units: A multicenter inception cohort study. Crit Care Med1994; 22: 1385–1391.
2.
RowanKMKerrJHMajorE: Intensive Care Society's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) study in Britain and Ireland: A prospective, multicenter, cohort study comparing two methods for predicting outcome for adult intensive care patients. Crit Care Med1994; 22: 1392–1401.
3.
ZimmermanJEShortellSMKnausWA: Value and cost of teaching hospitals: A prospective, multicenter, inception cohort study. Crit Care Med1993; 21: 1432–1442.
4.
StrandKFlaattenH: Severity scoring in the ICU: A review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand2008; 52: 467–478.
5.
DominguezTEPortnoyJD: Scoring for multiple organ dysfunction: Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score, Logistic Organ Dysfunction, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. Crit Care Med2002; 30: 1913–1914.
6.
MetnitzPGLangTValentinA: Evaluation of the logistic organ dysfunction system for the assessment of organ dysfunction and mortality in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med2001; 27: 992–998.
7.
BroessnerGHelbokRLacknerP: Survival and long-term functional outcome in 1,155 consecutive neurocritical care patients. Crit Care Med2007; 35: 2025–2030.
JennettBBondM: Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet1975; 305: 480–484.
10.
Le GallJRKlarJLemeshowS: The Logistic Organ Dysfunction system. A new way to assess organ dysfunction in the intensive care unit. ICU Scoring Group. JAMA1996; 276: 802–810.
11.
KnausWADraperEAWagnerDP: APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med1985; 13: 818–829.
12.
RogersJFullerHD: Use of daily Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores to predict individual patient survival rate. Crit Care Med1994; 22: 1402–1405.
13.
PettiläVPettiläMSarnaS: Comparison of multiple organ dysfunction scores in the prediction of hospital mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med2002; 30: 1705–1711.
14.
TimsitJFFosseJPTrochéG: Calibration and discrimination by daily Logistic Organ Dysfunction scoring comparatively with daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scoring for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med2002; 30: 2003–2013.
15.
EbellMHPrestonPS: The effect of the APACHE II score and selected clinical variables on survival following cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Fam Med1993; 25: 191–196.
16.
RutledgeRFakhrySRutherfordE: Comparison of APACHE II, Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score as predictors of outcome in critically injured trauma patients. Am J Surg1993; 166: 244–247.
17.
ShoemakerWC: Methodologic assessment of outcome. Crit Care Med1989; 17: S169.
18.
TeresD: Peer review, publication policy, and APACHE. Crit Care Med1989; 17: S169–S172.
19.
LemeshowSLe GallJR: Modeling the severity of illness of ICU patients. A systems update. JAMA1994; 272: 1049–1055.
20.
KhwannimitB: Validation of the LOD score compared with APACHE II score in prediction of the hospital outcome in critically ill patients. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health2008; 39: 138–145.
21.
MorenoRMoraisP: Outcome prediction in intensive care: results of a prospective, multicentre, Portuguese study. Intensive Care Med1997; 23: 177–186.
22.
ArabiYHaddadSGorajR: Assessment of performance of four mortality prediction systems in a Saudi Arabian intensive care unit. Crit Care2002; 6: 166–174.
23.
HarrisonDABradyARParryGJ: Recalibration of risk prediction models in a large multicenter cohort of admissions to adult, general critical care units in the United Kingdom. Crit Care Med2006; 34: 1378–1388.
24.
RowanKMKerrJHMajorE: Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland—II: outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method. BMJ1993; 307: 977–981.
25.
WangHYeLYuL: Performance of sequential organ failure assessment, logistic organ dysfunction and multiple organ dysfunction score in severe sepsis within Chinese intensive care units. Anaesth Intensive Care2011; 39: 55–60.
26.
SolenskiNJHaleyECJrKassellNF: Medical complications of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A report of the multicenter, cooperative aneurysm study. Participants of the Multicenter Cooperative Aneurysm Study. Crit Care Med1995; 23: 1007–1017.
27.
GruberAReinprechtAIllievichUM: Extracerebral organ dysfunction and neurologic outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Crit Care Med1999; 27: 505–514.
28.
ChoDYWangYC: Comparison of the APACHE III, APACHE II and Glasgow Coma Scale in acute head injury for prediction of mortality and functional outcome. Intensive Care Med1997; 23: 77–84.
29.
den BoerSde KeizerNFde JongeE: Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients—a review. Crit Care2005; 9: R458–R463.
30.
KochanekPMSnyderJVSirioCA: Specialty neurointensive care—is it just a name or a way of life?Crit Care Med2001; 29: 692–693.
31.
DiringerMNEdwardsDF: Admission to a neurologic/neurosurgical intensive care unit is associated with reduced mortality rate after intracerebral hemorrhage. Crit Care Med2001; 29: 635–640.
