Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score (LODS): A reliable postoperative risk management score also in cardiac surgical patients?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The original Logistic Organ Dysfunction Sore (LODS) excluded cardiac surgery<ul/>patients from its target population, and the suitability of this score in cardiac surgery patients has never been tested. We evaluated the accuracy of the LODS and the usefulness of its daily measurement in cardiac surgery patients. The LODS is not a true logistic scoring system, since it does not use β-coefficients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This prospective study included all consecutive adult patients who were admitted to<ul/>the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2008. The LODS was calculated daily from the first until the seventh postoperative day. Performance was assessed with Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test (calibration) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (discrimination) from ICU admission day until day 7. The outcome measure was ICU mortality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 2801 patients (29.6% female) with a mean age of 66.4 ± 10.7 years were<ul/>included. The ICU mortality rate was 5.2% (n = 147). The mean stay on the ICU was 4.3 ± 6.8 days. Calibration of the LODS was good with no significant difference between expected and observed mortality rates on any day (p ≥ 0.05). The initial LODS had an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.81. The AUC was best on ICU day 3 with a value of 0.93, and declined to 0.85 on ICU day 7.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although the LODS has not previously been validated for cardiac surgery<ul/>patients it showed reasonable accuracy in prediction of ICU mortality in patients after cardiac surgery.</p

A comparative study of four intensive care outcome prediction models in cardiac surgery patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Outcome prediction scoring systems are increasingly used in intensive care medicine, but most were not developed for use in cardiac surgery patients. We compared the performance of four intensive care outcome prediction scoring systems (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II], Simplified Acute Physiology Score II [SAPS II], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], and Cardiac Surgery Score [CASUS]) in patients after open heart surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We prospectively included all consecutive adult patients who underwent open heart surgery and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1^st2007 and December 31^st2008. Scores were calculated daily from ICU admission until discharge. The outcome measure was ICU mortality. The performance of the four scores was assessed by calibration and discrimination statistics. Derived variables (Mean- and Max- scores) were also evaluated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During the study period, 2801 patients (29.6% female) were included. Mean age was 66.9 ± 10.7 years and the ICU mortality rate was 5.2%. Calibration tests for SOFA and CASUS were reliable throughout (p-value not < 0.05), but there were significant differences between predicted and observed outcome for SAPS II (days 1, 2, 3 and 5) and APACHE II (days 2 and 3). CASUS, and its mean- and maximum-derivatives, discriminated better between survivors and non-survivors than the other scores throughout the study (area under curve ≥ 0.90). In order of best discrimination, CASUS was followed by SOFA, then SAPS II, and finally APACHE II. SAPS II and APACHE II derivatives had discrimination results that were superior to those of the SOFA derivatives.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CASUS and SOFA are reliable ICU mortality risk stratification models for cardiac surgery patients. SAPS II and APACHE II did not perform well in terms of calibration and discrimination statistics.</p