Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Comparison of mortality risk evaluation tools efficacy in critically ill COVID-19 patients
Vaidas Vicka1, Elija Januskeviciute2, Sigute Miskinyte2
1Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. vaidas555@gmail.com.
Background:
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) is still increasing. The aim of our article is to estimate which of the conventional ICU mortality risk scores is the most accurate at predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients and to determine how these scores can be used in combination with the 4C Mortality Score.
Methods:
This was a retrospective study of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated in tertiary reference COVID-19 hospitals during the year 2020. The 4C Mortality Score was calculated upon admission to the hospital. The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated upon admission to the ICU. Patients were divided into two groups: ICU survivors and ICU non-survivors.
Results:
A total of 249 patients were included in the study, of which 63.1% were male. The average age of all patients was 61.32 ± 13.3 years. The all-cause ICU mortality ratio was 41.4% (n = 103). To determine the accuracy of the ICU mortality risk scores a ROC-AUC analysis was performed. The most accurate scale was the APACHE II, with an AUC value of 0.772 (95% CI 0.714-0.830; p < 0.001). All of the ICU risk scores and 4C Mortality Score were significant mortality predictors in the univariate regression analysis. The multivariate regression analysis was completed to elucidate which of the scores can be used in combination with the independent predictive value. In the final model, the APACHE II and 4C Mortality Score prevailed. For each point increase in the APACHE II, mortality risk increased by 1.155 (OR 1.155, 95% CI 1.085-1.229; p < 0.001), and for each point increase in the 4C Mortality Score, mortality risk increased by 1.191 (OR 1.191, 95% CI 1.086-1.306; p < 0.001), demonstrating the best overall calibration of the model.
Conclusions:
The study demonstrated that the APACHE II had the best discrimination of mortality in ICU patients. Both the APACHE II and 4C Mortality Score independently predict mortality risk and can be used concomitantly.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
09:36Halogenated Agent Delivery in Porcine Model of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome via an Intensive Care Unit Type Device
Published on: September 24, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Kaplan-Meier Approach
The Mantel-Cox Log-Rank Test
Relative Risk
Cancer Survival Analysis
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...