ABSTRACT
Objectives To compare the accuracy of the SOFA and APACHE II scores in predicting mortality among ICU patients with sepsis in an LMIC.
Design A multicentre, cross-sectional study.
Setting A total of 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam.
Participants We included all patients aged ≥ 18 years who were admitted to ICUs for sepsis and who were still in ICUs from 00:00 hour to 23:59 hour of the specified study days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October of the year 2019).
Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was hospital all-cause mortality (hospital mortality). We also defined the secondary outcome as all-cause deaths in the ICU (ICU mortality).
Results Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in hospitals, and 33.3% died in ICUs. SOFA (AUROC: 0.688 [95% CI: 0.618-0.758]; cut-off value ≥ 7.5; PAUROC<0.001) and APACHE II scores (AUROC: 0.689 [95% CI: 0.622-0.756]; cut-off value ≥ 20.5; PAUROC<0.001) both had a poor discriminatory ability for predicting hospital mortality. However, the discriminatory ability for predicting ICU mortality of SOFA (AUROC: 0.713 [95% CI: 0.643-0.783]; cut-off value ≥ 9.5; PAUROC<0.001) was fair and was better than that of APACHE II score (AUROC: 0.672 [95% CI: 0.603-0.742]; cut-off value ≥ 18.5; PAUROC<0.001). A SOFA score ≥ 8 (adjusted OR: 2.717; 95% CI: 1.371-5.382) and an APACHE II score ≥ 21 (adjusted OR: 2.668; 95% CI: 1.338-5.321) were independently associated with an increased risk of hospital mortality. Additionally, a SOFA score ≥ 10 (adjusted OR: 2.194; 95% CI: 1.017-4.735) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality, in contrast to an APACHE II score ≥ 19, for which this role did not.
Conclusions In this study, SOFA and APACHE II scores were worthwhile in predicting mortality among ICU patients with sepsis. However, due to better discrimination for predicting ICU mortality, the SOFA was preferable to the APACHE II score in predicting mortality.
Clinical trials registry – India: CTRI/2019/01/016898
Strengths and limitations of this study
An advantage of the present study was data from multi centres, which had little missing data.
Due to the absence of a national registry of intensive care units (ICUs) to allow systematic recruitment of units, we used a snowball method to identify suitable units, which might have led to the selection of centres with a greater interest in sepsis management.
Due to the study’s real-world nature, we did not make a protocol for microbiological investigations. Moreover, we mainly evaluated resources utilized in ICUs; therefore, the data detailing the point-of-care testing and life-sustaining treatments were not available. Additionally, to improve the feasibility of conducting the study in busy ICUs, we opted not to collect data on antibiotic resistance and appropriateness.
Due to our independent variables (e.g., SOFA score that was greater than or equal to the cut-off value) that might be associated with primary outcome only measured upon ICU admission, the mixed-effects logistic regression model could not be used to predict discrete outcome variables measured at two different times, i.e., inside and outside the ICU settings.
Although the sample size was large enough, the confidence interval was slightly wide (±6.03%), which might influence the normal distribution of the sample.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee of Bach Mai Hospital gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We have removed the Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis and its relevant results from the Manuscript and Supplementary file. Additionally, we have streamlined the items following the TRIPOD statement - the TRIPOD checklist - for reporting a study developing or validating a multivariable prediction model for diagnosis or prognosis.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
