2007PubMedRequires access

Effects of APACHE II score on mechanical ventilation; prediction and outcome.

Ivana Pajić Matić, Marina Titlić, M Dikanovic, Matija Jurjević, Irena Jukić, Ante Tonkić

Open publisher page 26 citations

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the influence of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score on the choice of mechanical ventilation method and treatment outcome. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit over 22 months. Research sample consisted of 129 patients who required mechanical ventilation, divided in two groups: APACHE II < or = 20 and APACHE II > 20. Both groups were than randomized for either noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Comparison was made based on patient characteristics, objective parameters and influence of APACHE II score on treatment success and failure. RESULTS: APACHE II scoring was shown to have statistical significance on outcome assessment. Statistical significance was in favour of patients with APACHE II score < or = 20 vs > 20 (ventilator associated pneumonia 0 vs. 10, tracheotomy 0 vs. 16, Intensive Care Unit mortality 0 vs 12). Furthermore, in the group with APACHE II score > 20, after randomization, there was a statistical significance in favour of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in need for tracheotomy 2 (4%) vs. 14 (28%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using good patient selection and applying strict protocols, in the group of patients with APACHE II < or = 20 all patients had successful mechanical ventilation, while in the group of patients with APACHE II > 20, noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be applied.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: To evaluate the influence of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score on the choice of mechanical ventilation method and treatment outcome. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit over 22 months. Research sample consisted of 129 patients who required mechanical ventilation, divided in two groups: APACHE II < or = 20 and APACHE II > 20. Both groups were than randomized for either noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Comparison was made based on patient characteristics, objective parameters and influence of APACHE II score on treatment success and failure. RESULTS: APACHE II scoring was shown to have statistical significance on outcome assessment. Statistical significance was in favour of patients with APACHE II score < or = 20 vs > 20 (ventilator associated pneumonia 0 vs. 10, tracheotomy 0 vs. 16, Intensive Care Unit mortality 0 vs 12). Furthermore, in the group with APACHE II score > 20, after randomization, there was a statistical significance in favour of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in need for tracheotomy 2 (4%) vs. 14 (28%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using good patient selection and applying strict protocols, in the group of patients with APACHE II < or = 20 all patients had successful mechanical ventilation, while in the group of patients with APACHE II > 20, noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be applied.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: To evaluate the influence of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score on the choice of mechanical ventilation method and treatment outcome. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit over 22 months. Research sample consisted of 129 patients who required mechanical ventilation, divided in two groups: APACHE II < or = 20 and APACHE II > 20. Both groups were than randomized for either noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Comparison was made based on patient characteristics, objective parameters and influence of APACHE II score on treatment success and failure. RESULTS: APACHE II scoring was shown to have statistical significance on outcome assessment. Statistical significance was in favour of patients with APACHE II score < or = 20 vs > 20 (ventilator associated pneumonia 0 vs. 10, tracheotomy 0 vs. 16, Intensive Care Unit mortality 0 vs 12). Furthermore, in the group with APACHE II score > 20, after randomization, there was a statistical significance in favour of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in need for tracheotomy 2 (4%) vs. 14 (28%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using good patient selection and applying strict protocols, in the group of patients with APACHE II < or = 20 all patients had successful mechanical ventilation, while in the group of patients with APACHE II > 20, noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be applied.

Key concepts: Medicine, Mechanical ventilation, APACHE II, Intensive care unit, Statistical significance, Randomization, Randomized controlled trial, Tracheotomy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effects of APACHE II score on mechanical ventilation; prediction and outcome. — Research Paper | ScholarLens