Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration.Ĭonclusions: APACHE IV showed better discrimination compared to APACHE II in our ICU population. APACHE IV had better discriminative power area under the ROC curve ( –0.82) than APACHE II (AUC-0.75). The overall crude hospital mortality rate was 17.6%. The APACHE scores were significantly higher among nonsurvivors than survivors ( P < 0.001). The mean (±standard deviation) admission APACHE II score was 19.4 ± 8.9, and APACHE IV score was 59.1 ± 27.2. Results: Of a total 1268, 1003 patients were included in this study. Discrimination of the model for mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0. All patients were followed up till discharge from the hospital or death. APACHE II and IV score were calculated during the first 24 h of ICU stay based on the worst values. Material and Methods: All patients admitted to the ICU between January and June 2014 and who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of APACHE II and IV scoring system in our ICU. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems provide an objective means of mortality prediction in ICU. Background and Aims: Outcome prediction of critically ill patients is an integral part of care in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Apache 2 score calculator