Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Springer-Verlag 1999 O R I GI N A L
ready present on ICU admission, the good instrument to be used in the Key words Severity of illness index
degree of dysfunction/failure that evaluation of organ dysfunction/ Sepsis Multiple organ failure
appears during the ICU stay and the failure. Multiple organ dysfunction
cumulative insult suffered by the syndrome Intensive care Critical
patient. These properties make it a care
Table 1 Maximum SOFA scores for the six organ systems in the
global population, in survivors and in non-survivors. The differen-
ces between survivors and non-survivors were always significant
(p < 0.001). Results are presented as mean standard deviation
Component Global population Survivors Non-survivors
(n = 1,444) (n = 1,131) (n = 313)
Respiratory 2.2 1.3 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.1
Cardiovascular 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 2.9 1.4
Renal 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.4
Coagulation 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.7 1.3
Hepatic 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.3
Neurological 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.9 1.6
Total Maximum
SOFA score 8.2 5.4 6.7 4.5 13.6 4.8
Table 3 Relative contributions to ICU outcome of the maximum value during ICU stay for each of the six components of the SOFA
score
Variable b SE Wald p R Odds-ratio
(95 % confidence intervals)
Respiratory 0.164 0.080 4.176 0.041 0.038 1.176 (1.0071.378)
Cardiovascular 0.521 0.063 68.242 < 0.001 0.210 1.683 (1.4881.905)
Renal 0.377 0.061 37.951 < 0.001 0.154 1.458 (1.2941.643)
Coagulation 0.198 0.072 7.482 0.006 0.060 1.219 (1.0591.404)
Hepatic 0.202 0.155 1.702 0.192 0.000 0.817 (0.6031.107)
Neurological 0.339 0.049 48.703 < 0.001 0.176 1.404 (1.2751.545)
Constant 3.750 0.351 113.930
b, coefficient; SE, standard error; Wald, Wald statistic, R, partial correlation. Odds-ratios are presented for a 1-point change in the scores
for each organ
691
Table 5 Delta SOFA (total maximum SOFA score minus admis- ing the ICU stay. The first factor comprises the re-
sion total SOFA score) and ICU outcome spiratory, cardiovascular and neurological scores and
Delta Number of % of Death in Mortality the second the coagulation, hepatic and renal compo-
SOFA patients patients the ICU (n) rate (%) nents.
0 390 27.0 38 9.7 Delta SOFA presented a mean value of 3.0 3.3
1 234 16.2 20 8.5 points, median 2.0 points, range 019 points. Delta
2 191 13.2 29 15.2 SOFA was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in non-survi-
3 140 9.7 26 18.6 vors than in survivors (5.5 4.1 points versus
4 118 8.2 29 24.6 2.3 2.7 points). As presented in Table 5, ICU mortality
5 90 6.2 24 26.7
6 72 5.0 29 40.3 increased as the delta SOFA score increased. The asso-
7 53 3.7 24 45.3 ciation between mean delta SOFA and ICU mortality
8 39 2.7 21 53.8 followed a linear pattern (Fig. 5, Table 5). Delta SOFA
9 33 2.3 17 51.5 presented an area under the ROC curve of 0.742 (SE
10 22 1.5 16 72.7 0.017) (Fig. 4), which was significantly lower (p < 0.001)
11 20 1.4 12 60.0 than that of the total maximum SOFA score and slightly
12 16 1.1 9 56.3
13 9 0.6 7 77.8 lower (non-significant) than that of the admission total
14 5 0.3 4 80.0 SOFA score (0.772, SE 0.015).
L 15 12 0.8 8 66.7 In order to evaluate the relative contribution to ICU
outcome of the amount of organ dysfunction present at
ICU admission (admission total SOFA score) and that
developing during ICU stay (delta SOFA score), a non-
of the SOFA score. The results (Table 4) demonstrated stepwise logistic regression equation was developed.
the existence of a two-factor structure, each compris- Results demonstrate that both were important for out-
ing three components of the system, that became come, and with a similar weight (Table 6). The associat-
more clear when the analysis was limited to the pres- ed odds ratios, for a 1 point change in the score were
ence or absence of organ failure (SOFA score 3) dur- 1.36 (95 % confidence interval 1.301.42) for the admis-
Table 6 Relative contribution for outcome in the ICU of the admission SOFA score and delta SOFA
Variable b SE Wald p R Odds-ratio (95 % confidence intervals)
Admission total SOFA 0.308 0.022 192.784 < 0.001 0.356 1.361 (1.3031.421)
score
Delta SOFA 0.312 0.024 170.274 < 0.001 0.334 1.367 (1.3031.432)
Constant 4.765 0.247 372.404
b, coefficient; SE, standard error; Wald, Wald statistic, R, partial correlation. Odds-ratios are presented for a 1-point change in the score.
692
sion total SOFA score and 1.37 (95 % confidence inter- were not clear. The same relation was present when we
val 1.301.43) for the delta SOFA score. limited the analysis to organ failure (SOFA score 3
points). The discriminative power was very good (area
under ROC curve 0.847, SE 0.012). For individual organ
scores, the best discriminative power was seen for car-
Discussion
diovascular score. In multivariate analysis the impact
Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) has be- on outcome of organ dysfunction/failure was higher for
come the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in in- cardiovascular (odds ratio 1.68) and renal (odds ratio
tensive care [3133]. Described initially by Tilney et al. 1.46) scores. The hepatic dysfunction/failure did not
in 1973 after massive acute blood loss and shock [34], it show a significant impact on prognosis (odds ratio
was found later to be associated with infection [35, 36], 0.82). No significant interactions were seen between in-
acute pancreatitis [37], burns [38], shock [39] and trau- dividual organ failures. Using principal components
ma [40]. analysis, a clear pattern was seen when we analysed or-
As emphasised by a recent Consensus Conference gan failures (SOFA score 3 points), with a two-factor
[41], there is a need for a comprehensive database to structure: respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological,
test and validate optimal criteria for describing this syn- and coagulation, hepatic and renal. In the overall analy-
drome, in which specific variables could be tested sis the same pattern was present although less clear, with
against outcome. Various efforts to this end have ap- the cardiovascular score having an intermediate posi-
peared recently in the literature [26, 4244]. All were tion.
built on the common assumptions: that one can describe The amount of organ dysfunction/failure occurring
increasing dysfunction in individual organs and assess after ICU admission (delta SOFA) also showed a good
MODS as a continuum of organ dysfunction/failure in- correlation to outcome. On multivariate analysis this ef-
stead of an on/off phenomenon. However, limitations fect was still significant after controlling for admission
exist for all. The systems proposed by Marshall et al. score. It should be noted that the delta SOFA ability to
(multiple organ dysfunction score) and by Bernard distinguish between patients who died and patients
et al.(Brussels score) have not been tested in a multicen- who survived was lower than that of the total maximum
tre representative database of critically ill patients. The SOFA score or even than of the admission SOFA score.
system proposed by Le Gall et al., logistic organ dys- This stresses the importance of the degree of physiolog-
function (LOD) score, was developed with very sophis- ical derangement on admission to the ICU [4648] and
ticated statistical techniques to choose and weigh the of cumulative organ dysfunction [31, 43] to the progno-
variables in a large international database. However, it sis.
was developed and validated with data collected only Why use a total maximum SOFA score instead of a
in the first 24 h in the ICU and no information exists simpler measure? Our rationale was that a daily evalua-
about its behaviour at later stages in the evolution of tion would not be able to capture the overall amount of
MODS. organ dysfunction/failure sustained by the patient dur-
A panel of experts constructed the latest system, ing the course of the disease. Different organs are af-
SOFA score, based on a review of the literature. This fected in this complex physiopathological process at dif-
methodology, has been applied successfully in the past ferent points in time [32] and a daily evaluation, al-
[45] but needs extensive validation in order to evaluate though appealing, can miss the total amount of organ
the adequacy of the variables chosen and their limits. dysfunction sustained by the patient, leading to an un-
This was recognised in the original description [26] and derestimation of the cumulative insult suffered. It has
prompted the Working Group on Sepsis-related Prob- been shown that mortality due to MODS depends on
lems of the ESICM to perform a prospective, multina- the number of failing organs [31, 43, 49], on the severity
tional validation study. The main data have been pre- of the dysfunction/failure [43, 44], on the particular
sented elsewhere [27]. Based on these data, we studied combination of failing organs [4951] and on the dura-
the validity of two complementary measures as descrip- tion [31, 49]. Our system, following the path of previous
tors of morbidity in intensive care: total maximum work by Marshall et al. [43], allows the quantification of
SOFA score and delta SOFA. all these conditions. Alternative approaches, based on
The results show that, in this ICU patient database, the daily application of severity scores have been pro-
total maximum SOFA score showed a very good corre- posed [48, 5257] but are usually limited to the first
lation to outcome and occurred early during the ICU days in the ICU [48, 54] or have later failed to confirm
stay. All the individual organ scores were significantly their initial performances [58].
higher in non-survivors than in survivors, with a clear Additionally, the proposed system allows the distinc-
correlation between increasing score and increasing tion between the dysfunction/failure already present at
mortality except for low values (less than 3) of the neu- ICU admission (which depends mainly on admission
rological and respiration scores, where the patterns policies), the dysfunction/failure that appears during
693
the ICU stay and the evaluation of the total insult suf- 30-day mortality. This fact could have introduced some
fered by the patient. All are very important by them- bias in the analyses and more research should be under-
selves, as shown in Table 6, but also address comple- taken to examine whether there exists a link between
mentary facets of a complex response. The admission organ dysfunction/failure during the ICU stay, short-
SOFA reflects the degree of failure already present term (ICU) mortality and long-term mortality. For that
when the patient enters the ICU. This measurement, purpose, patients must be followed after ICU discharge
that only the admission mortality prediction model [47] and monitored for the development of further complica-
is able to achieve, can be used to stratify patients ac- tions. Second, SOFA, similar to all the published organ
cording to severity of illness, for example, for inclusion failure scores, uses the Glasgow coma score for neuro-
in clinical trials based on the admission SOFA score. logical evaluation [65] and this computation can be
The delta SOFA measures the progress of the patient very difficult or impossible in sedated patients and very
during the ICU stay and is potentially influenced by prone to errors in data collection. Certainly we need to
therapy. The fact that it was a good prognostic indicator develop better ways to assess neurological dysfunction
after controlling for admission SOFA score suggests in the critically ill, non-trauma patient.
that strategies directed at the prevention and/or limita- The best treatment for MODS is certainly preven-
tion of further organ dysfunction will have a significant tion. Unfortunately, this is not possible in many cases.
impact on prognosis, independent of the condition of New diagnostic tools and new therapeutic options are
the patient on admission to the ICU. This certainly needed to deal with this complex syndrome that is re-
needs further research. Last but not least, the quantifi- sponsible for so many deaths. In the meantime, instru-
cation of the total insult suffered by the patient during ments like the SOFA score and their derived measures
the ICU stay (total maximum SOFA) was a very impor- should be used for the evaluation and quantification of
tant prognostic indicator. This suggests that it can be organ dysfunction/failure.
used to quantify the impact of therapeutic interventions
on overall or organ-specific morbidity. Some but not all Acknowledgements The authors want to acknowledge the efforts
in data collection by all the participants in the study. A complete
of those interventions could also have an impact on
list of participating centres can be found in J.-L. Vincent et al. [27].
mortality, but to focus exclusively on mortality as an
end point could lead to an underestimation of the rele-
vant effects of therapeutic interventions obscured by
the heterogeneity of causes of death.
Appendix
What is the precise nature of the two-factor structure
observed? What are the precise relationships between SOFA score was computed at admission and for every
the respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological systems 24 h period from the most deranged values for each of
or between the coagulation, hepatic and renal systems? the organ systems considered [26].
One tempting explanation could be the presence of An example of the computation of the associated val-
two targets in this complex syndrome. If this is the ues is shown below:
case, the first association would represent the primary A patient was admitted to the ICU subsequent to sur-
insult (e. g. shock or severe respiratory failure) and the gery for a perforated duodenal ulcer, complicated by
second its late consequences, appearing as a result of peritonitis. At admission, he had respiratory failure
the host response to the primary insult. This two-target with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 180 on mechanical ventilation,
explanation is consistent with previous descriptions mild cardiovascular dysfunction (mean arterial pressure
[41, 59] but must be tested in adequate models. The 60 mmHg without vasoactive drugs), and mild neuro-
presence of neurological dysfunction/failure in the first logical dysfunction (Glasgow Coma score 14). There
factor could be explained by the presence of patients were no renal, liver or coagulation disturbances (blood
with trauma in this database (181 patients, although creatinine 1.0 mg/dl, serum bilirubin 1.0 mg/dl and
probably not all with head trauma) or by the early onset 250 103platelets/mm3). The SOFA score computed at
of septic encephalopathy in MODS [60]. Moreover, admission was 5 points.
concerns about the reliability of the evaluation of neu- During his ICU stay, the respiratory function im-
rological dysfunction in critically ill patients have re- proved with the patient being weaned from the ventila-
cently been raised [61], although not shared by all the tor on day 2 and presenting a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 420 on
researchers [62, 63]. Maybe when physiologists return the day of discharge. Cardiovascular support with do-
from the drawing board, as recently suggested [64], we butamine was needed on days 1 and 2. A mild renal dys-
will gain more insight into the explanation of this phe- function (creatinine 1.6) was present on days 1 and 2.
nomenon. Thrombocytopenia (minimal value 40 103platelets/
Our study presents some limitations that must be ac- mm3) and hyperbilirubinaemia (maximum serum biliru-
knowledged. First, we only evaluated the relationship bin 7.8 mg/dl) appeared during the ICU stay. Neurologi-
of SOFA with ICU outcome and not with hospital or cal function worsened during days 2 and 3 (Glasgow
694
SOFA score 1 2 3 4
Respiration < 400 < 300 < 200 < 100
PaO2/FiO2 mm Hg with respiratory support with respiratory support
Coagulation < 150 < 100 < 50 < 20
Platelets x 103/mm3
Liver 1.21.9 2.05.9 6.011.9 > 12.0
Bilirubin, mg/dL (2032) (33101) (102204) (> 204)
(mmol/L)
Cardiovascular MAP < 70 mm Hg Dopamine K 5 or Dopamine < 5 or Dopamine > 1.5 or epine-
Hypotensiona Dobutamine (any dose) epinephrine K 0.1 or phrine > 0.1 or norepine-
norepinephrine K 0.1 phrine > 0.1
Central Nervous System 1314 1012 69 <6
Glasgow coma score
Renal 1.21.9 2.03.4 3.54.9 > 5.0
Creatinine, mg/dL (110170) (171299) (300440) or (> 440) or
(mmol/L) or urine output < 500 mL/day < 200 mL/day
a
adrenergic agents administered for at least one hour (doses given are in mg/kg min)
coma score 12) and then improved, with a Glasgow The summary of the evolution of the patient in terms of SOFA
Coma Score of 15 at discharge. score is given bellow
The patient was discharged to the ward on day 5, still Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
with thrombocytopenia and hyperbilirubinaemia. Respiratory 3 3 2 2 1 0
The summary of the evolution of the patient in terms Cardiovascular 1 2 2 0 0 0
of SOFA score is given below. Renal 0 1 1 0 0 0
Total maximum SOFA score was 14 points, and delta Coagulation 0 1 1 3 3 3
SOFA score 9 points Hepatic 0 1 2 2 3 3
Neurological 1 1 2 2 1 0
Total maximum SOFA score was 14 points, and delta SOFA score
9 points.
References
1. Bone RC, Fisher CJ, Clemmer TP, et al. 5. Fisher CJ, Dhainaut J-FD, Opal SM, 9. Froom AM, Greve JW, Buurman WA,
(1987) A controlled trial of high-dose et al. (1994) Recombinant human inter- et al. (1996) Treatment with the plate-
methylprednisolone in the treatment of leukin-1 receptor antagonist in the let-activating factor antagonist TCV-
severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl treatment of patients with sepsis syn- 309 in patients with severe systemic in-
J Med 317: 653658 drome: results from a randomized, dou- flammatory response syndrome: a pro-
2. Greenman RL, Schein RMH, Martin ble-blind, placebo-controlled trial. spective, multi-center, double-blind,
MA, et al. (1991) A controlled clinical JAMA 271: 18361844 randomized phase II trial. Shock 5:
trial of E5 murine monoclonal IgM an- 6. Abraham E, Wunderink R, Silverman 313319
tibody to endotoxin in the treatment of H, et al. (1995) Efficacy and safety of 10. Reinhart K, Wiegand-Loehnert C,
Gram-negative sepsis. JAMA 266: monoclonal antibodies to human necro- Grimminger F, et al. (1996) Assessment
10971102 sis factor-alpha in patients with sepsis of the safety and efficacy of the mono-
3. Ziegler EJ, Fisher CJ, Sprung CL, et al. syndrome. JAMA 273: 934941 clonal anti-tumour necrosis factor anti-
(1991) Treatment of gram-negative bac- 7. Cohen J, Carlet J (1996) INTERSEPT: body-fragment MAK 195F, in patients
teremia and septic shock with ha-1 a hu- an international, multicenter, placebo- with sepsis and septic shock: a multicen-
man monoclonal antibody against en- controlled trial of monoclonal antibody ter, randomized, placebo-controlled,
dotoxin. A randomized, double-blind, to human tumor necrosis factor-alpha dose-ranging study. Crit Care Med 24:
placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med in patients with sepsis. International 733742
324: 429436 Sepsis Trial Study Group. Crit Care 11. Abraham E, Glauser MP, Butler T,
4. Dhainaut J-FD, Tenaillon A, Le Tulzo Med 24: 14311440 et al. (1997) p55 Tumor necrosis factor
Y, et al. (1994) Platelet-activating factor 8. Fisher CJ Jr, Agosti JM, Opal SM, et al. fusion protein in the treatment of pa-
receptor antagonist BN 52 021 in the (1996) Treatment of septic shock with tients with severe sepsis and septic
treatment of severe sepsis: a random- the tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc shock. A randomized controlled multi-
ized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fusion protein. N Engl J Med 334: center trial. JAMA 277: 15311538
multicenter clinical trial. Crit Care 16971702
Med 22: 17201728
695
12. Bernard GR, Wheeler AP, Russell JA, 24. Grgoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J 38. Marshall WG, Dimick AR (1983) Natu-
et al. (1997) The effects of ibuprofen (1995) Selecting the language of the ral history of major burns with multiple
on the physiology and survival of pa- publications included in a meta-analy- subsystem failure. J Trauma 23: 102105
tients with sepsis. N Engl J Med 336: sis: is there a tower of Babel bias? J 39. Henao FJ, Daes JE, Dennis RJ (1991)
912918 Clin Epidemiol 48: 159163 Risk factors for multiorgan failure: a
13. Fein AM, Bernard GR, Criner GJ, et al. 25. Hoffman SL, Punjabi NH, Kumala S, case-control study. J Trauma 31: 7480
(1997) Treatment of severe systemic in- et al. (1984) Reduction of mortality in 40. Faist E, Baue AE, Dittmer H, Heberer
flammatory response syndrome and chloramphenicol treated severe thy- G (1983) Multiple organ failure in poly-
sepsis with a novel bradykinin antago- phoid fever by high-dose dexametha- trauma patients. J Trauma 23: 775787
nist, deltibant (CP-0127). Results of a sone. N Engl J Med 310: 8288 41. Members of the American College of
randomized, double-blind, placebo- 26. Vincent J-L, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. Chest Physicians and the Society of
controlled trial. JAMA 277: 482487 (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-related organ Critical Care Medicine Consensus Con-
14. Sibbald WJ, Vincent J-L (1995) Round failure assessment) score to describe or- ference Committee (1992) American
table conference on clinical trials for gan dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care College of Chest Physicians / Society of
the treatment of sepsis. Brussels, March Med 22: 707710 Critical Care Medicine Consensus Con-
1214, 1994. Intensive Care Med 21: 27. Vincent J-L, De Mendona A, Can- ference: definitions of sepsis and multi-
184189 traine F, et al. (1998) Use of the SOFA ple organ failure and guidelines for the
15. Jencks SF, Williams DK, Kay TL (1988) score to assess the incidence of organ use of innovative therapies in sepsis.
Assessing hospital-associated deaths dysfunction/failure in intensive care Crit Care Med 20: 864874
from discharge data. The role of length units: results of a multicentric, prospec- 42. Bernard GR, Doig BG, Hudson G,
of stay and comorbidities. JAMA 260: tive study. Crit Care Med 26: 17931800 et al. (1995) Quantification of organ
22402246 28. Hanley J, McNeil B (1982) The mean- failure for clinical trials and clinical
16. Petros AJ, Marshall JC, Van-Saene HK ing and use of the area under a receiver practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
(1995) Should morbidity replace mor- operating characteristic (ROC) curve. 151: A323
tality as an endpoint for clinical trials Radiology 143: 2936 43. Marshall JC, Cook DA, Christou NV,
in intensive care? Lancet 345: 369371 29. Hanley J, McNeil B (1983) A method of Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ
17. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Harrell FE, comparing the areas under receiver op- (1995) Multiple organ dysfunction
Draper EA (1994) What determines erating characteristic curves derived score: a reliable descriptor of a complex
prognosis in sepsis? Evidence for a from the same cases. Radiology 148: clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 23:
comprehensive individual patient risk 839843 16381652
assessment approach to the design and 30. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE 44. Le Gall JR, Klar J, Lemeshow S, et al.
analysis of clinical trials. In: Reinhart (1987) Applied regression analysis and (1996) The logistic organ dysfunction
K, Eyrich K, Sprung C (eds) Sepsis. other multivariate methods. PWS-Kent system. A new way to assess organ dys-
Current Perspectives in Pathophysiolo- Publishing Company, Boston function in the intensive care unit.
gy and Therapy. Springer, Berlin Hei- 31. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, JAMA 276: 802810
delberg, pp 2337 Zimmerman JE (1985) Prognosis in 45. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP,
18. Le Gall J-R, Lemeshow S, Leleu G, acute organ-system failure. Ann Surg Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a
et al. (1995) Customized probability 202: 685693 severity of disease classification system.
models for early severe sepsis in adult 32. Deitch EA (1992) Multiple organ fail- Crit Care Med 13: 818829
intensive care patients. JAMA 273: ure: pathophysiology and potential fu- 46. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA,
644650 ture therapy. Ann Surg 216: 117134 et al. (1991) The APACHE III prognos-
19. Sprung CL, Finch RG, Thijs LG, Glau- 33. Tran DD (1994) Age, chronic disease, tic system. Risk prediction of hospital
ser MP (1996) International sepsis trial sepsis, organ system failure and mortal- mortality for critically ill hospitalized
(INTERSEPT): role and impact of a ity in the elderly admitted to the inten- adults. Chest 100: 16191636
clinical evaluation committee. Crit sive care medicine. Intensive Care Med 47. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin
Care Med 24: 14411447 20: S110 JS, Gehlbach SH, Rapoport J (1993)
20. Knaus WA, Harrell FE, Fisher CJ, et al. 34. Tilney NL, Baily GL, Morgan AP Mortality Probability Models (MPM
(1993) The clinical evaluation of new (1973) Sequential system failure after II) based on an international cohort of
drugs for sepsis. A prospective study de- rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms: intensive care unit patients. JAMA
sign based on survival analysis. JAMA an unsolved problem in postoperative 270: 24782486
270: 12331241 care. Ann Surg 178: 117122 48. Wagner DP, Knaus WA, Harrel FE Jr,
21. Knaus WA (1994) Principles of severity 35. Fry DE, Pearlstein L, Fulton RL, Polk Zimmerman JE, Watts C (1994) Daily
stratification and outcome prediction HC (1980) Multiple system organ fail- prognostic estimates for critically ill
in sepsis and shock. Intensive Care ure. The role of uncontrolled infection. adults in intensive care units: results
Med 20: S115 Arch Surg 115: 136140 from a prospective, multicenter, incep-
22. Stoutenbeek CP, Van Saene HK, Miran- 36. Bell RC, Coalson JJ, Smith JD, Johan- tion cohort analysis. Crit Care Med 22:
da DR, Zandstra DF (1984) The effect son WG (1983) Multiple organ failure 13591372
of selective decontamination of the di- and infection in adult respiratory dis- 49. Zimmerman JE, Knaus WA, Sun X,
gestive tract on colonisation and infec- tress syndrome. Ann Intern Med 99: Wagner DP (1996) Severity stratifica-
tion rate in multiple trauma patients. 293298 tion and outcome prediction for multi-
Intensive Care Med 10: 185192 37. Tran DD, Cuesta MA (1992) Evalua- system organ failure and dysfunction.
23. Kollef MH (1994) The role of selective tion of severity in patients with acute World J Surg 20: 401405
digestive tract decontamination on mor- pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 87:
tality and respiratory tract infections. A 604608
meta-analysis. Chest 105: 11011108
696
50. Hebert PC, Drummond AJ, Singer J, 55. Rogers J, Fuller HD (1994) Use of daily 60. Eidelman LA, Putterman D, Putterman
Bernard GR, Russell JA (1993) A sim- acute physiology and chronic health C, Sprung CL (1996) The spectrum of
ple multiple system organ failure scor- evaluation (APACHE) II scores to pre- septic encephalopathy. Definitions, eti-
ing system predicts mortality of patients dict individual patient survival rate. ologies, and mortalities. JAMA 275:
who have sepsis syndrome. Chest 104: Crit Care Med 22: 14021405 470473
230235 56. Yzerman EP, Boelens HA, Tjhie JH, 61. Rowan K (1996) The reliability of case
51. Fagon J-Y, Chastre J, Novara A, Medi- Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, Verbrugh mix measurements in intensive care.
oni P, Gilbert C (1993) Characterization HA (1996) Delta APACHE II for pre- Curr Opin Crit Care 2: 209213
of intensive care unit patients using a dicting course and outcome of nosoco- 62. Damiano AM, Bergner M, Draper EA,
model based on the presence or absence mial Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia Knaus WA, Wagner DP (1992) Reli-
of organ dysfunctions and/or infection: and its relation to host defense. J Infect ability of a measure of severity of ill-
the ODIN model. Intensive Care Med Dis 173: 914919 ness: acute physiology and chronic
19: 137144 57. Pittet D, Thivent B, Wenzel RP, Li N, health evaluation -II. J Clin Epidemiol
52. Chang RWS, Jacobs S, Lee B (1988) Auckenthaler R, Suter PM (1996) Bed- 45: 93101
Predicting outcome among intensive side prediction of mortality from bacte- 63. Bastos PG, Sun X, Wagner DP, Wu AW,
care unit patients using computerised riemic sepsis. A dynamic analysis of Knaus WA (1993) Glasgow coma scale
trend analysis of daily Apache II scores ICU patients. Am J Respir Crit Care score in the evaluation of outcome in
corrected for organ system failure. In- Med 153: 684693 the intensive care unit: findings from
tensive Care Med 14: 558566 58. Jacobs S, Arnold A, Clyburn PA, Willis the acute physiology and chronic health
53. Chang RWS (1989) Individual outcome BA (1992) The Riyadh intensive care evaluation III study. Crit Care Med 21:
prediction models for intensive care program applied to a mortality analysis 14591465
units. Lancet i: 143146 of a teaching hospital intensive care 64.Chernow B (1996) Back to the drawing
54. Lemeshow S, Klar J, Teres D, et al. unit. Anaesth Resusc Intensive Ther board. Crit Care Med 24: 10971098
(1994) Mortality probability models for 47: 775780 65. Bernard GR (1998) Quantification of
patients in the intensive care unit for 48 59. Redl H, Schlag G (1990) Pathophysiol- organ dysfunction: seeking standardiza-
or 72 hours: a prospective, multicenter ogy of multi-organ failure (MOF) pro- tion. Crit Care Med 26: 17671768
study. Crit Care Med 22: 13511358 posed mechanisms. Clin Intensive Care
1: 6671