Are the conventional scoring systems efficient in predicting mortality of acute mesenteric ischemia?: Mortality estimation in patients with AMI

Yilmaz A. S., YAŞAR N. F., BADAK B., ŞENDİL A. M., Salis M., Oner S.

MEDICINE, cilt.101, sa.52, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 101 Sayı: 52
  • Basım Tarihi: 2022
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1097/md.0000000000032619
  • Dergi Adı: MEDICINE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: APACHE II, factor analysis, mesenteric ischemia, organ dysfunction scores, simplified acute physiology score, statistical analysis, APACHE-II
  • Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Acute mesenteric ischemia is a surgical emergency with high morbidity and mortality rates. Therefore, it is important to determine the prognosis for this disease. In the present study, we aimed to compare the prediction accuracy of 3 scoring systems: Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, sequential organ failure assessment score and simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II). The retrospective cohort study was conducted in a university hospital. Eighty-two acute mesenteric ischemia patients were evaluated retrospectively. The mortality prediction abilities of the scoring systems were evaluated by comparing the prediction rates of > 10%, 30% and 50% and the actual mortality among survivors and non-survivors in pairs. Predicted mortality rates among survivors and non-survivors differed among the 3 classification systems. The mortality estimates of the SAPS II were closer to the actual mortality rates. Analysis of the estimated mortality rates as mortality risk limits showed that acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II was superior to sequential organ failure assessment score and SAPS II in estimating mortality rates, whereas SAPS II was more successful in detecting survivors. The estimated mortality rates of the 3 rating systems, the estimated mortality rates were higher in the non-survivor group than in the survivor group. The accuracy of the SAPS II in determining prognosis was relatively better.