The revised Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation System (APACHE II) is more effective than the Glasgow Coma Scale for prediction of mortality in head-injured patients with systemic trauma

Ali Dalgiç, Fikret M Ergüngör, Türker Becan, Atila Elhan, Onder Okay, Bülent C Yüksel
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is popular, simple, and reliable, and provides information about the level of consciousness in trauma patients. Nevertheless, the necessity of using a more complex system than GCS has been questioned recently. The revised Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation system (APACHE II) is a physiologically based system including 12 physiological variables, and it also includes GCS. In addition, it is thought to be superior to GCS due to recognition of increasing
more » ... and significant chronic health problems, which adversely affect mortality. This retrospective study included 266 patients (195 males, 71 females; mean age 60.5; range 14 to 87 years) with head injury associated with systemic trauma in 2003 and 2004. Mortality increased in the elderly group (p<0.001). Mean survival score in APACHE II was 38.0 and death score was 68.7 (p<0.001); these values in GCS were 10.4 and 6.3, respectively (p<0.001). APACHE II at the cut-off point was better than GCS in the prediction of death and survival in patients (p<0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for sensitivity and specificity was larger in APACHE II (0.892+/-0.028) than GCS (0.862+/-0.029). For the assessment of mortality, the GCS score still provides simple, less-time consuming and effective information concerning head injury patients, especially in emergencies; however, for the prediction of mortality in multitrauma patients, APACHE II is superior to GCS since it includes the main physiologic parameters of patients.
pmid:19779985 fatcat:biip3lgyvneuvejuv4i4vn3q4q