Open Access

Bench-to-bedside review: Outcome predictions for critically ill patients in the emergency department

Critical Care20059:376

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3518

Published: 18 April 2005

Abstract

The escalating number of emergency department (ED) visits, length of stay, and hospital overcrowding have been associated with an increasing number of critically ill patients cared for in the ED. Existing physiologic scoring systems have traditionally been used for outcome prediction, clinical research, quality of care analysis, and benchmarking in the intensive care unit (ICU) environment. However, there is limited experience with scoring systems in the ED, while early and aggressive intervention in critically ill patients in the ED is becoming increasingly important. Development and implementation of physiologic scoring systems specific to this setting is potentially useful in the early recognition and prognostication of illness severity. A few existing ICU physiologic scoring systems have been applied in the ED, with some success. Other ED specific scoring systems have been developed for various applications: recognition of patients at risk for infection; prediction of mortality after critical care transport; prediction of in-hospital mortality after admission; assessment of prehospital therapeutic efficacy; screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome; and prediction of pediatric hospital admission. Further efforts at developing unique physiologic assessment methodologies for use in the ED will improve quality of patient care, aid in resource allocation, improve prognostic accuracy, and objectively measure the impact of early intervention in the ED.

Introduction

The landscape of critical care delivery in the emergency department (ED) is rapidly changing. The phenomena of hospital and ED overcrowding are increasing in severity and remain unresolved. In the USA there are more than 110 million ED visits per year [1]. The proportion of critically ill patients presenting to the ED and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) has also risen. In California alone there was a 59% increase in the number of visits of critically ill patients to the ED from 1990 to 1999 [2]. Inpatient telemetry and ICU beds continue to be fully occupied for a significant amount of the time in many hospitals and is a primary cause of overcrowding in the ED [3, 4]. As hospital census approaches 100%, the ED unavoidably becomes a surrogate ICU. Unfortunately, resources are often limited, and critical care delivery in the ED setting is fraught with inadequate space and medical equipment and lack of staffing. Increasingly stringent nurse-patient ratios are being mandated and enforced on the inpatient ward, consequently worsening the overcrowding problem, with ED nurses often far extended over their patient care capacity. ED physicians are often over-extended as well, and adequate critical care is often difficult to provide and sometimes overlooked in a busy ED. Early disease recognition and prognostication of outcome with the aid of physiologic scoring systems is a potentially valuable tool for the multitasking ED physician, and may result in improved critical care when intensive care expertise is not yet available.

In addition to the increasing focus on critical care in the ED, the framework of critical care within the ICU is evolving. The evolution of scoring systems has extended beyond just prognostication. Scoring systems now encompass critical care illness as a continuum that extends from the inciting event and treatment (often begun in the ED) to the post-ICU recovery and rehabilitation processes. Physiologic scoring systems are being utilized by clinicians and medical researchers in decision support, outcomes and evaluation research, quality care analysis, and internal and competitive benchmarking. This is the new face of ICU care and supports ongoing development of scoring systems in the ED setting as well [5, 6].

We review existing physiologic scoring systems designed for application in critically ill patients, and examine how these systems have been applied in the ED. We also focus on scoring systems developed specifically for prognosticating outcome in ED patients.

Scoring systems in the intensive care unit

Intensivists have used a variety of physiologic scoring systems in clinical decision making over the past few decades. There is currently increased emphasis regarding their use in continuous quality improvement processes, as entry criteria in clinical research trials, and even as indicators of the efficacy of drug therapy [7]. Furthermore, in an era of rising health care expenditure, prognosticating outcome permits earlier detection of patients who will benefit most from early and aggressive therapeutic intervention. Numerous physiologic scoring systems have been developed and used widely in the ICU. Because these scoring systems are well known in the intensive care literature, we review them only briefly here.

The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score is one of the first physiologic scoring systems developed as a mortality prediction model. It is a point scoring system that determines the severity of disease based on the worst measurements of 12 physiologic variables during the first 24 hours of ICU admission, prior health co-morbidities, and age. A high numeric score closely correlates with increased risk for in-hospital death [8]. APACHE II has been subjected to the most validation studies, which show that mortality prediction is accurate, and it is currently the most widely used scoring system in the ICU setting. It has been shown to predict outcome accurately in a variety of medical illnesses, including pancreatitis [9], cirrhotic liver disease [10], infective endocarditis [11], medical complications of oncologic patients [12], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [13], gastrointestinal hemorrhage [14], myxedema coma [15], acute myocardial infarction requiring mechanical ventilation [16], and septic abortion [17]. APACHE II has even been shown to be superior to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification in preoperative prediction of postoperative mortality [18]. The latest APACHE III scoring system was shown to be reliable in predicting outcome of surgical ICU patients as well [19, 20].

Other scoring systems such as the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II [21], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score [22], Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) [23], Mortality Probability Models [24, 25], and the Pediatric Risk of Mortality score [26, 27] have been shown to be beneficial in predicting resource utilization, organ failure, and mortality in patient populations such as those with cardiovascular disease [28], adult [29] and pediatric [30] trauma, obstetric patients [31], surgical ICU patients [32, 33], and nonsurgical ICU patients [34].

Although these systems were originally designed to predict mortality, their use is being progressively expanded to compare clinical trials [3537] and for criteria to initiate drug therapy; for example, an APACHE II score of 25 or greater is often used as an indication for drotrecogin alfa (activated) in severe sepsis. Hence, there is difference between how scoring systems were derived and how they are being used clinically.

Scoring systems in trauma

Trauma scoring systems have also been used in the triage of trauma patients and to predict their outcome. Trauma scores have been used to characterize severity of injury and physiologic derangements quantitatively.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) assesses the severity of head trauma based on three response parameters: eye opening, motor, and verbal response. Compared with other more extensive scoring systems, the GCS has been shown to be superior in predicting outcome, which it does with high sensitivity and specificity [38]. It is also simple to use and readily applied at the bedside. However, inter-rater reliability of GCS scoring was recently shown to be less adequate than was previously believed [39]. Furthermore, the three individual component scores of GCS have similar areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to that of the total GCS score for predicting ED intubation, neurosurgical intervention, brain injury, and mortality [40].

The Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) evaluates the need in staffing, monitoring, and therapeutic intervention rather than stratifying severity of illness. Patients are assigned to a class from I to IV, ranging from those who do not require intensive therapy to those patients who are considered physiologically unstable. TISS has been shown to be effective in stratification and prediction of ICU cost [41]. With the new TISS-28, it may be possible to predict post-ICU outcome and identify those high-risk patients who would benefit from further observation [42]. The Trauma Score provides a numerical assessment of central nervous system and cardiopulmonary function. Prediction of survival was shown to be reliable [43]. The Revised Trauma Score is probably the more widely used scoring system currently in trauma and is an accurate predictor of outcome. However, its usefulness as a triage tool was recently questioned [44].

Other trauma scores have been designed using various combinations of physiologic parameters, mechanism, age, GCS, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Examples of these scoring systems include the Injury Severity Score, Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), International Classification Injury Severity Score, and the Physiologic Trauma Score. These scoring systems have been used in a variety of trauma scenarios, including motor vehicle accidents, blunt and penetrating trauma, and even in pediatric polytrauma [43, 4549].

Existing scoring systems applied to the emergency department

ED scoring and outcome prediction are innovative but relatively novel concepts. As a result, few scoring systems are specific to the ED setting. Most scoring systems are applicable upon ICU admission and throughout the first 24 hours after admission. These systems usually do not take into account the ED length of stay and course of therapy. Several authors have taken existing physiologic scoring systems, originally designed for application in the non-ED setting, and applied them in the ED and prehospital patient population.

For example, TRISS was used to determine the effectiveness of ground versus air transport for major trauma victims [50]. TRISS accurately predicted 15 out of 15 deaths of the 110 patients transported by ground, but only 33 out of the 46 predicted deaths occurred in the 103 patients transported by air. Even though the study did not randomize patients to receive ground versus air transport, the authors concluded that air transport resulted in better outcome because only 72% of patients predicted to die actually died following air transport. Irrespective, the study suggests that current trauma scoring systems can be applied successfully in prehospital and ED settings.

Another study used three physiologic scoring systems – APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS – to assess the impact of ED intervention on morbidity and in-hospital mortality [51]. In that prospective, observational cohort study, patients were enrolled and their scores were computed at ED admission, ED discharge, and at 24, 48 and 72 hours in the ICU. The authors applied these scoring systems at specific time points in order to observe the trend in scores over a 72-hour period. Length of ED stay was approximately 6 hours. The hourly decreases in APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores were noted to be most significant during the ED stay, as compared with scores computed during the subsequent 72 hours in the ICU. The APACHE II and SAPS II scores both exhibited notable decreases in predicted mortality during the ED stay. The nontraditional use of these scores allowed the authors to show that the highest scores and predicted mortalities occurred during the ED stay, and that traditional scoring during the first 24 hours after ICU admission (and after initial resuscitation) may not account for the actual severity of disease in the pre-ICU period. Although the study reemphasizes the significant impact that ED intervention has on critically ill patients, it also suggests that existing scoring systems such as APACHE II either are limited to their original design (which is prognosticate to outcome based only on the first 24 hours in the ICU) or need to be recalibrated to include physiologic parameters in the ED [51].

SIRS, part of the definition of sepsis, has been used as a predictor of outcome in patients admitted to the ICU from the ED [52]. SIRS in combination with an elevated lactate (≥ 4 mmol/l) in the ED was found to be 98.2% specific for admission to the hospital and the ICU, and 96% specific for predicting mortality in normotensive patients [53, 54]. SIRS and elevated lactate (≥ 4 mmol/l) have also been used successfully in the ED as screening variables for initiation of invasive hemodynamic monitoring and early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis or septic shock patients, resulting in significantly improved outcomes [35]. Because SIRS has been the limiting factor to a better definition of sepsis [55], the addition of lactate in the triaging of patients with a suspected infection may allow ED physicians to identify normotensive patients at high risk for septic shock.

The Pneumonia Severity Index [56] is a measure of severity of community-acquired pneumonia, taking into account physiologic parameters, age, medical co-morbidities, and laboratory studies. Even though it was designed as an outcome prediction tool, the Pneumonia Severity Index is widely used as a determinant for site of care in conjunction with clinical judgment [57] and as a quality assessment tool [5860].

Scoring systems developed for use in the emergency department

There are a number of physiologic scoring systems designed for use in the ED setting, some of which are discussed below and summarized in Table 1. These systems require several unique characteristics that are inherent to the ED, such as ease of use and bedside availability, accuracy of prediction within a shorter time frame of data collection, and comparability with current ICU scoring systems on hospital admission.
Table 1

Physiologic scoring systems developed and implemented in the emergency department setting

ED scoring system

Reference

Objectives and method

Summary results

Application

MEDS

[61]

Prospective cohort study in ED patients at risk for infection, using multivariate analysis to identify independent predictors of death

Development and internal validation of a prediction rule to risk stratify ED patients at risk for infection and predict their mortality. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.82 for the derivation set (n = 2070) and 0.78 for the validation set (n = 1109)

MEDS accurately identifies correlates of death in ED patients at risk for infection and is useful in stratification of patients according to mortality risk

RAPS

[82]

Prospective multi-institutional study of diverse group of transported patients to define the predictive power of RAPS

Predictive power of RAPS for mortality using the most deranged physiologic parameters pre- and post-transport was high (n = 1881), with ROC curves exhibiting predictive power similar to that of APACHE II

RAPS is a strong predictor of mortality and is highly reliable in predicting severity of physiologic instability before and after transport

REMS

[67]

Prospective cohort study to evaluate the accuracy of RAPS in predicting mortality and length of stay in nonsurgical ED patients. Age and SaO2 were added to RAPS to derive REMS

REMS was superior to RAPS in predicting inpatient mortality, with area under the ROC curve of 0.85 for REMS and 0.65 for RAPS (n = 12,006)

REMS is an excellent predictor of inpatient mortality and length of stay for a wide range of nonsurgical ED patients

MEES

[69]

Prospective study to develop a rapid, simple scoring system to evaluate prehospital intervention based on objective parameters

Development and evaluation of MEES as a scoring system to evaluate prehospital clinical treatment. MEES was found to be an efficient and effective method for determining the impact of ED intervention (n = 356)

MEES is a reliable method for assessing prehospital intervention

SARS

[71]

Prospective study to validate SARS (four-item symptom and six-item clinical) screening scores in predicting SARS in febrile ED patients in endemic areas

Previously developed SARS screening scores (n = 70) were examined in 239 patients with fever. Eighty-two patients had SARS. The scores exhibited a combined sensitivity of 90.2% and specificity of 80.1% for SARS

SARS screening scores are potential screening methods for SARS in mass outbreaks

PRISA

[74]

Prospective study of pediatric severity of illness assessment, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to develop a model predicting hospital admission

Development of PRISA as an assessment tool to predict pediatric hospital admission from the ED. Areas under the ROC curve were 0.86 and 0.83 for the development (n = 2146) and validation (n = 537) samples, respectively, in predicting pediatric ED admission

PRISA can reliably predict pediatric hospital admission using data during the ED stay

APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; ED, emergency department; MEDS, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis; MEES, Mainz Emergency Evaluation Systems; PRISA, Pediatric Risk of Admission; RAPS, Rapid Acute Physiology Score; REMS, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; SaO2, oxygen saturation; SARS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

The Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis Score (MEDS) is a recent scoring system developed from independent variables and univariate correlates of mortality. It was designed to predict patients in the ED who are at risk for infection and to stratify them into risk categories for mortality [61]. A prediction model was developed based on independent multivariate predictors of death, including terminal illness, tachypnea or hypoxia, septic shock, platelet count below 150,000/mm3, band proportion above 5%, age above 65 years, lower respiratory infection, nursing home residence, and altered mental status. Based on the MEDS score, patients in the developmental group were assigned to very low, low, moderate, high, and very high risk categories for mortality. MEDS as a valid outcome prediction model was established in a validation group, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.76 in this group [61]. MEDS is among the first scoring systems to be examined over the natural course of sepsis beginning in the ED. However, the mortality in the study patients of 5.3% is exceedingly low compared with the more familiar sepsis mortality range (16–80%) [62, 63]. Thus, studies are needed to validate MEDS before it may be clinically applicable in other ED settings.

The Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS) is an abbreviated version of the APACHE II scoring system. It was developed to predict mortality before, during, and after critical care transport. Limited physiologic parameters available on transport (i.e. pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and GCS) were used and scored numerically [64]. RAPS correlated well with APACHE II score in a comparison analysis (r = 0.85; P < 0.01) [64]. RAPS, when initiated in the prehospital setting and extended into the full APACHE II score upon admission, is highly predictive of mortality [65, 66]. RAPS is an efficient scoring system for use in the prehospital setting, but it is probably too abbreviated. Because most of the variables included in the score are vital signs, it may be too sensitive as a prediction tool. For example, patient anxiety during transport, leading to an elevated heart rate or respiratory rate, will easily increase the RAPS score over a very short time interval.

The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) is a modification of RAPS, with age and peripheral oxygen saturation added to the RAPS score. Its predictive value is superior to that of RAPS for in-hospital mortality when applied to patients presenting in the ED with common medical issues [67]. The area under the ROC curve is 0.85 for REMS, as compared with 0.65 for RAPS (P < 0.05) [67]. REMS has also been shown to have predictive accuracy similar to that of APACHE II [68]. A clinician can easily expand a REMS score into the full APACHE II score. Thus, an APACHE II score can be quickly calculated by the intensivist with a few additional parameters once the patient is admitted to the ICU. Although studies have examined its application in the ED, these studies are limited to the nonsurgical patient population.

The Mainz Emergency Evaluation Systems (MEES) was developed in Germany to assess prehospital therapeutic efficacy. It is based on seven variables: level of consciousness, heart rate, heart rhythm, arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, partial arterial oxygen saturation, and pain. A MEES score is obtained before and after prehospital intervention to assess patient improvement or deterioration. Although it does not allow outcome prediction, it does provide an easy and reliable assessment of prehospital care [43, 69]. A recent study [70] showed that adding end-tidal carbon dioxide capnometry to MEES has significantly greater value than MEES alone in predicting survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nontraumatic cardiac arrest.

In Taiwan, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) screening scores were developed specifically for prediction of this syndrome in febrile ED patients. Recently, two of these SARS screening scores, the four-item symptom score and the six-item clinical score, were tested and validated in different cohorts in Taiwan and were found to have good sensitivity and specificity for predicting SARS [71]. The study suggests that these scores could be used as a tool for mass screening in case of future outbreaks. However, they would not be applicable for screening on a case-by-case basis outside endemic regions.

The Pediatric Risk of Admission score includes nine physiologic variables, three medical history components, three chronic disease factors, two therapies, and four interaction terms. This score provides a probability of admission from the ED for pediatric patients. It was shown to be reliable in predicting admission and providing a measure of illness severity [7274]. Although the score was not designed specifically for outcome prediction, it is an example of the use of scoring systems to risk stratify and triage patients in the ED.

Conclusion

Emergency physicians have the opportunity to have a significant impact on the initial evaluation and treatment of the critically ill patient. Application of outcome prediction models in the form of physiologic scoring systems allows early recognition of illness severity and initiation of evidence-based therapeutic interventions. In the presence of overcrowded, under-staffed EDs, the utility of efficient and bedside physiologic scoring systems can be of tremendous value to the multitasking ED physician. As technology advances, immediate access to patient data and the availability of ED scoring systems on hand-held computers will further facilitate outcome prediction. However, the current development, implementation, and verification of these systems in the ED setting are limited.

Unique physiologic assessment tools and outcome prediction models should be developed for use in the ED setting. Physiologic scoring systems such as APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS were developed to measure illness severity objectively, to provide mortality risk probabilities, and to evaluate the performance of ICUs. When these models are applied in the ED setting, lead-time bias may result because these systems were not originally designed to account for pre-ICU illness severity [51]. Thus, similar models specific to the ED should include the following: variables that reflect prehospital severity of illness and are commonly obtained in the ED; use of practical time-indexed variables that reflect response to treatment delivered in dynamic resuscitation during ED care; creation of an independent, multicenter database to establish adequate sample size and power for the development and validation of the model [21, 7579]; analysis of the relationships among the predictive variables and actual patient outcome for overall calibration and reliability of the model; establishment of outcomes other than mortality, such as patient disposition, number of return visits to the ED, lengths of ED and ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation, and functional status at hospital discharge [80]; and the ability to be correlated with more established scoring systems already in place in ICUs.

Outcome prediction science is not considered synonymous to physician clinical judgment. However, the intent of prediction models is to reduce clinician variability and improve the overall accuracy of prognostic estimates. An ED patient-specific prediction model can assist clinicians by providing greater certainty in the effects of interventions provided in the ED; improving the understanding of existing physiologic measurements and their influence on outcomes; reducing variations in individual clinical judgment on the severity of patient illness at ED presentation; allowing for comparison of probability thresholds to guide important clinical decisions; and providing a common measurement tool with which to compare performance among EDs [80, 81]. Physiologic assessment tools can also identify outliers by comparing actual outcomes with expected outcomes, and thus provide opportunities for quality improvement if inadequacies of care are identified in case reviews. However, it must be recognized that physiologic scoring systems are typically developed to provide estimates of outcome for a group of patients, and not to predict individual patient outcome. In addition, they should not be used to make end-of-life decisions in emergency situations.

Most EDs are staffed for short-term stabilization of critically ill patients. Because of overcrowding and prolonged ED lengths of stay, the care provided to patients with such high acuity may vary and is limited by available equipment, training, and staff-patient ratios. Methodologies such as physiologic scoring systems to assess the quality and quantity of critical care delivered will serve as tools to help remedy the varying care delivered in the ED setting. Thus unique physiologic assessment methodologies should be developed to examine and improve the quality of patient care, enhance the precision of clinical research, aid in resource allocation, improve the accuracy of prognostic decisions, and objectively measure the impact of clinical interventions and pathways in the ED.

Abbreviations

APACHE: 

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

ED: 

emergency department

GCS: 

Glasgow Come Scale

ICU: 

intensive care unit

MEDS: 

Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis Score

MEES: 

Mainz Emergency Evaluation Systems

MODS: 

Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score

RAPS: 

Rapid Acute Physiology Score

REMS: 

Rapid Emergency Medicine Score

ROC: 

receiver operating characteristic

SAPS: 

Simplified Acute Physiology Score

SARS: 

severe acute respiratory syndrome

SIRS: 

systemic inflammatory response syndrome

TISS: 

Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System

TRISS: 

Trauma and Injury Severity Score.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University

References

  1. McCaig LF, Burt CW: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2002 emergency department summary. Adv Data 2004, 340: 1-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Derlet RW, Richards JR: Emergency department overcrowding in Florida, New York, and Texas. South Med J 2002, 95: 846-849.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. American Hospital Association, The Lewin Group: Emergency department overload: a growing crisis. The results of the AHA survey of emergency department and hospital capacity.2002. [http://www.hospitalconnect.com/aha/press_room-info/content/EdoCrisisSlides.pdf]Google Scholar
  4. United States General Accounting Office: Hospital Emergency Departments: Crowded Conditions Vary Among Hospitals and Communities. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance, US Senate; 2003. GAO-03-460.Google Scholar
  5. Marcin JP, Pollack MM: Triage scoring systems, severity of illness measures, and mortality prediction models in pediatric trauma. Crit Care Med 2002, 30: S457-S467. 10.1097/00003246-200211001-00011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Herridge MS: Prognostication and intensive care unit outcome: the evolving role of scoring systems. Clin Chest Med 2003, 24: 751-762. 10.1016/S0272-5231(03)00094-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Watts CM, Knaus WA: The case for using objective scoring systems to predict intensive care unit outcome. Crit Care Clin 1994, 10: 73-89. discussion 91-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985, 13: 818-829.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gurleyik G, Cirpici OZ, Aktekin A, Saglam A: The value of Ranson and APACHE II scoring systems, and serum levels of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in the early diagnosis of the severity of acute pancreatitis [in Turkish]. Ulus Travma Derg 2004, 10: 83-88.Google Scholar
  10. Ho YP, Chen YC, Yang C, Lien JM, Chu YY, Fang JT, Chiu CT, Chen PC, Tsai MH: Outcome prediction for critically ill cirrhotic patients: a comparison of APACHE II and Child-Pugh scoring systems. J Intensive Care Med 2004, 19: 105-110. 10.1177/0885066603261991View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu VH, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK Jr, Kuniholm EF, Fowler VG Jr, Engemann J, Sexton DJ, Corey GR, Wang A: Early predictors of in-hospital death in infective endocarditis. Circulation 2004, 109: 1745-1749. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000124719.61827.7FView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Sculier JP: Is a specific oncological scoring system better at predicting the prognosis of cancer patients admitted for an acute medical complication in an intensive care unit than general gravity scores? Support Care Cancer 2004, 12: 234-239. 10.1007/s00520-003-0580-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Afessa B, Morales IJ, Scanlon PD, Peters SG: Prognostic factors, clinical course, and hospital outcome of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admitted to an intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 2002, 30: 1610-1615. 10.1097/00003246-200207000-00035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Afessa B: Triage of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding for intensive care unit admission based on risk factors for poor outcome. J Clin Gastroenterol 2000, 30: 281-285. 10.1097/00004836-200004000-00015View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rodriguez I, Fluiters E, Perez-Mendez LF, Luna R, Paramo C, Garcia-Mayor RV: Factors associated with mortality of patients with myxoedema coma: prospective study in 11 cases treated in a single institution. J Endocrinol 2004, 180: 347-350. 10.1677/joe.0.1800347View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lesage A, Ramakers M, Daubin C, Verrier V, Beynier D, Charbon-neau P, du Cheyron D: Complicated acute myocardial infarction requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: prognostic factors of clinical outcome in a series of 157 patients. Crit Care Med 2004, 32: 100-105. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098605.58349.76View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Finkielman JD, De Feo FD, Heller PG, Afessa B: The clinical course of patients with septic abortion admitted to an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2004, 30: 1097-1102. 10.1007/s00134-004-2207-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goffi L, Saba V, Ghiselli R, Necozione S, Mattei A, Carle F: Pre-operative APACHE II and ASA scores in patients having major general surgical operations: prognostic value and potential clinical applications. Eur J Surg 1999, 165: 730-735. 10.1080/11024159950189483View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopez Aguila SC, Diosdado Iraola Ferrer M, Alvarez Li FC, Davila Cabo de Villa E, Alvarez Barzaga MC: Mortality risk factors in critical surgical patients [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2000, 47: 281-286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Carneiro AV, Leitao MP, Lopes MG, De Padua F: Risk stratification and prognosis in critical surgical patients using the Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health III System (APACHE III) [in Portuguese]. Acta Med Port 1997, 10: 751-760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F: A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993, 270: 2957-2963. 10.1001/jama.270.24.2957View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, Sprung CL, Colardyn F, Blecher S: Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on "sepsis-related problems" of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 1998, 26: 1793-1800.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ: Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1995, 23: 1638-1652. 10.1097/00003246-199510000-00007View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin JS, Gehlbach SH, Rapoport J: Mortality Probability Models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA 1993, 270: 2478-2486. 10.1001/jama.270.20.2478View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rue M, Artigas A, Alvarez M, Quintana S, Valero C: Performance of the Mortality Probability Models in assessing severity of illness during the first week in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2000, 28: 2819-2824.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollack MM, Ruttimann UE, Getson PR: Pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) score. Crit Care Med 1988, 16: 1110-1116.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollack MM, Patel KM, Ruttimann UE: PRISM III: an updated Pediatric Risk of Mortality score. Crit Care Med 1996, 24: 743-752. 10.1097/00003246-199605000-00004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Metnitz PG, Valentin A, Vesely H, Alberti C, Lang T, Lenz K, Steltzer H, Hiesmayr M: Prognostic performance and customization of the SAPS II: results of a multicenter Austrian study. Simplified Acute Physiology Score. Intensive Care Med 1999, 25: 192-197. 10.1007/s001340050815View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Antonelli M, Moreno R, Vincent JL, Sprung CL, Mendoca A, Pas-sariello M, Riccioni L, Osborn J: Application of SOFA score to trauma patients. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. Intensive Care Med 1999, 25: 389-394. 10.1007/s001340050863View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Castello FV, Cassano A, Gregory P, Hammond J: The Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) Score and Injury Severity Score (ISS) for predicting resource utilization and outcome of intensive care in pediatric trauma. Crit Care Med 1999, 27: 985-988. 10.1097/00003246-199905000-00041View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. el-Solh AA, Grant BJ: A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for critically ill obstetric patients. Chest 1996, 110: 1299-1304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Agha A, Bein T, Frohlich D, Hofler S, Krenz D, Jauch KW: 'Simplified Acute Physiology Score' (SAPS II) in the assessment of severity of illness in surgical intensive care patients [in German]. Chirurg 2002, 73: 439-442. 10.1007/s00104-001-0374-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ceriani R, Mazzoni M, Bortone F, Gandini S, Solinas C, Susini G, Parodi O: Application of the sequential organ failure assessment score to cardiac surgical patients. Chest 2003, 123: 1229-1239. 10.1378/chest.123.4.1229View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Barie PS, Hydo LJ: Influence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome on duration of critical illness and hospitalization. Arch Surg 1996, 131: 1318-1323. discussion 1324View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M, Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group: Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001, 345: 1368-1377. 10.1056/NEJMoa010307View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, et al.: Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2001, 344: 699-709. 10.1056/NEJM200103083441001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Annane D, Sebille V, Charpentier C, Bollaert PE, Francois B, Korach JM, Capellier G, Cohen Y, Azoulay E, Troche G, et al.: Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and flu-drocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock. JAMA 2002, 288: 862-871. 10.1001/jama.288.7.862View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rocca B, Martin C, Viviand X, Bidet PF, Saint-Gilles HL, Chevalier A: Comparison of four severity scores in patients with head trauma. J Trauma 1989, 29: 299-305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gill MR, Reiley DG, Green SM: Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2004, 43: 215-23. 10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00814-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gill M, Windemuth R, Steele R, Green SM: A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale score to simplified alternative scores for the prediction of traumatic brain injury outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2005, 45: 37-42. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.07.429View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lefering R: Biostatistical aspects of outcome evaluation using TISS-28. Eur J Surg Suppl 1999, 584: 56-61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Fortis A, Mathas C, Laskou M, Kolias S, Maguina N: Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 as a tool of post ICU outcome prognosis and prevention. Minerva Anestesiol 2004, 70: 71-81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Himmelseher S, Pfenninger E, Strohmenger H: Do we need trauma scoring in emergency medicine? [in German]. Anaesthesist 1994, 43: 376-384. 10.1007/s001010050070View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Finch CF: Is the revised trauma score still useful? ANZ J Surg 2003, 73: 944-948. 10.1046/j.1445-1433.2003.02833.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Wolfe R: TRISS: does it get better than this? Acad Emerg Med 2004, 11: 181-186. 10.1197/j.aem.2003.08.019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Davis EG, MacKenzie EJ, Sacco WJ, Bain LW Jr, Buckman RF Jr, Champion HR, Lees PS: A new 'TRISS-like' probability of survival model for intubated trauma patients. J Trauma 2003, 55: 53-61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ott R, Kramer R, Martus P, Bussenius-Kammerer M, Carbon R, Rupprecht H: Prognostic value of trauma scores in pediatric patients with multiple injuries. J Trauma 2000, 49: 729-736.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rutledge R, Osler T, Emery S, Kromhout-Schiro S: The end of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): ICISS, an International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision-based prediction tool, outperforms both ISS and TRISS as predictors of trauma patient survival, hospital charges, and hospital length of stay. J Trauma 1998, 44: 41-49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhls DA, Malone DL, McCarter RJ, Napolitano LM: Predictors of mortality in adult trauma patients: the physiologic trauma score is equivalent to the Trauma and Injury Severity Score. J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194: 695-704. 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01211-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Boyd CR, Corse KM, Campbell RC: Emergency interhospital transport of the major trauma patient: air versus ground. J Trauma 1989, 29: 789-93. discussion 793-794.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Nguyen HB, Rivers EP, Havstad S, Knoblich B, Ressler JA, Muzzin AM, Tomlanovich MC: Critical care in the emergency department: a physiologic assessment and outcome evaluation. Acad Emerg Med 2000, 7: 1354-1361.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sun D, Aikawa N: The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and the evaluation of SIRS criteria as a predictor of severity in patients hospitalized through emergency services. Keio J Med 1999, 48: 28-37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Aduen J, Bernstein WK, Khastgir T, Miller J, Kerzner R, Bhatiani A, Lustgarten J, Bassin AS, Davison L, Chernow B: The use and clinical importance of a substrate-specific electrode for rapid determination of blood lactate concentrations. JAMA 1994, 272: 1678-1685. 10.1001/jama.272.21.1678View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Grzybowski M: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and lactic acidosis in the detection of critical illness among patients presenting to the emergency department. Chest 1996, 110: 145S.Google Scholar
  55. Vincent JL: Dear SIRS, I'm sorry to say that I don't like you. Crit Care Med 1997, 25: 372-374. 10.1097/00003246-199702000-00029View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, Hanusa BH, Weissfeld LA, Singer DE, Coley CM, Marrie TJ, Kapoor WN: A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med 1997, 336: 243-250. 10.1056/NEJM199701233360402View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Bartlett JG, Breiman RF, Mandell LA, File TM Jr: Community-acquired pneumonia in adults: guidelines for management. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 26: 811-838.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Flanders WD, Tucker G, Krishnadasan A, Martin D, Honig E, McClellan WM: Validation of the pneumonia severity index. Importance of study-specific recalibration. J Gen Intern Med 1999, 14: 333-340. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00351.xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, Boersma WG, Karalus N, Town GI, Lewis SA, Macfarlane JT: Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003, 58: 377-382. 10.1136/thorax.58.5.377PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Yealy DM, Auble TE, Stone RA, Lave JR, Meehan TP, Graff LG, Fine JM, Obrosky DS, Edick SM, Hough LJ, et al.: The emergency department community-acquired pneumonia trial: methodology of a quality improvement intervention. Ann Emerg Med 2004, 43: 770-782. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.09.013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Moore RB, Smith E, Burdick E, Bates DW: Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score: a prospectively derived and validated clinical prediction rule. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 670-675. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054867.01688.D1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rangel-Frausto MS, Pittet D, Costigan M, Hwang T, Davis CS, Wenzel RP: The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A prospective study. JAMA 1995, 273: 117-123. 10.1001/jama.273.2.117View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Angus DC, Wax RS: Epidemiology of sepsis: An update. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: S109-S116. 10.1097/00003246-200107001-00035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Rhee KJ, Fisher CJ Jr, Willitis NH: The rapid acute physiology score. Am J Emerg Med 1987, 5: 278-282. 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90350-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Rhee KJ, Baxt WG, Mackenzie JR, Burney RE, Boyle V, O'Malley RJ, Schwabe D, Storer DL, Weber R, Willits NH: Differences in air ambulance patient mix demonstrated by physiologic scoring. Ann Emerg Med 1990, 19: 552-556.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Bertollo S, Rodenberg H: Correlation of the RTS (Revised Trauma Score) and RAPS (Rapid Acute Physiology Score) in rotor-wing prehospital care. Air Med J 1994, 13: 91-95. 10.1016/S1067-991X(05)80299-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L: Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. J Intern Med 2004, 255: 579-587. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01321.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Olsson T, Lind L: Comparison of the rapid emergency medicine score and APACHE II in nonsurgical emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 2003, 10: 1040-1048. 10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00342-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Hennes HJ, Reinhardt T, Otto S, Dick W: The preclinical efficacy of emergency care. A prospective study [in German]. Anaesthesist 1993, 42: 455-461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Grmec S, Kupnik D: Does the Mainz Emergency Evaluation Scoring (MEES) in combination with capnometry (MEESc) help in the prognosis of outcome from cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a prehospital setting? Resuscitation 2003, 58: 89-96. 10.1016/S0300-9572(03)00116-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Su CP, Chiang WC, Ma MH, Chen SY, Hsu CY, Ko PC, Tsai KC, Fan CM, Shih FY, Chen SC, et al.: Validation of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome scoring system. Ann Emerg Med 2004, 43: 34-42. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.10.042View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Chamberlain JM, Patel KM, Pollack MM, Brayer A, Macias CG, Okada P, Schunk JE, Collaborative Research Committee of the Emergency Medicine Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics: Recalibration of the pediatric risk of admission score using a multi-institutional sample. Ann Emerg Med 2004, 43: 461-468. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.08.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Gravel J, Gouin S, Amre D, Bergeron S, Lacroix J: Evaluation of the pediatric risk of admission score in a pediatric emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2003, 41: 630-638. 10.1067/mem.2003.139View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Chamberlain JM, Patel KM, Ruttimann UE, Pollack MM: Pediatric risk of admission (PRISA): a measure of severity of illness for assessing the risk of hospitalization from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1998, 32: 161-169.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Knaus WA, Le Gall JR, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Loirat P, Campos RA, Cullen DJ, Kohles MK, Glaser P, Granthil C, et al.: A comparison of intensive care in the U.S.A. and France. Lancet 1982, 2: 642-646. 10.1016/S0140-6736(82)92748-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Oh TE, Hutchinson R, Short S, Buckley T, Lin E, Leung D: Verification of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scoring system in a Hong Kong intensive care unit [see comments]. Crit Care Med 1993, 21: 698-705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Zimmerman JE, Knaus WA, Judson JA, Havill JH, Trubuhovich RV, Draper EA, Wagner DP: Patient selection for intensive care: a comparison of New Zealand and United States hospitals. Crit Care Med 1988, 16: 318-326.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Sirio CA, Tajimi K, Tase C, Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Hirasawa H, Sakanishi N, Katsuya H, Taenaka N: An initial comparison of intensive care in Japan and the United States [see comments]. Crit Care Med 1992, 20: 1207-1215.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Chen FG, Khoo ST: Critical care medicine: a review of the outcome prediction in critical care. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1993, 22: 360-364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Lynn J: Short-term mortality predictions for critically ill hospitalized adults: science and ethics. Science 1991, 254: 389-394.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Cairns CB, Garrison HG, Hedges JR, Schriger DL, Valenzuela TD: Development of new methods to assess the outcomes of emergency care. Acad Emerg Med 1998, 5: 157-161.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Rhee KJ, Mackenzie JR, Burney RE, Willits NH, O'Malley RJ, Reid N, Schwabe D, Storer DL, Weber R: Rapid acute physiology scoring in transport systems. Crit Care Med 1990, 18: 1119-1123.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2005