SAPS III: Simplified acute physiology score 3
The Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS 3) is an ICU scoring system and is used to predict the mortality risk for patients presenting at the ICU.
Research authors: Philipp G.H. Metnitz, Rui P. Moreno, Eduardo Almeida, Barbara Jordan, Peter Bauer, Ricardo Abizanda Campos, Gaetano Iapichino, David Edbrooke, Maurizia Capuzzo, Jean-Roger Le Gall, on behalf of the SAPS 3 investigators
Details Custom formula Study characteristics Files & References
★★★★
Model author
Model ID
1114
Version
1.33
Revision date
2018-08-27
Specialty
MeSH terms
  • Intensive Care Unit
  • Model type
    Custom model (Conditional)
    Status
    public
    Rating
    Share
    Condition Formula

    Additional information

    A total of 22,791 admissions were recorded in the 309 participating ICUs during the study period. For patients who were admitted more than once (n=1,455), only the first admission was included, giving 21,336 admitted patients. Patients who were <16 years of age (n=628), those without ICU admission or discharge data (n=1,074), and those with records that lacked an entry in the field “ICU outcome” (n=57) were excluded. The Basic SAPS 3 Cohort thus comprises 19,577 patients from 307 ICUs.

    For the development of a predictive model for hospital mortality as outcome, patients with a missing entry in the field of “vital status at hospital discharge” (n=2,540) or an entry of “still in the hospital” at the end of the follow-up period (n=253) were further excluded. The SAPS 3 Hospital Outcome Cohort thus comprises 16,784 patients from 303 ICUs.

    Study Population

    Total population size: 19559
    Males: {{ model.numberOfMales }}
    Females: {{ model.numberOfFemales }}

    Continuous characteristics

    Name LL Q1 Median Q3 UL Unit
    Age 49 63 74 years
    ICU Length of Stay 1 2 6 days
    SAPS II score 20 30 42 score
    SOFA score 6 9 11 score

    Categorical characteristics

    Name Subset / Group Nr. of patients
    Origin Home 2810
    Same hospital 13926
    Chronic care facility 74
    Public place 519
    Other hospital 2125
    Other 80
    Missing 43
    Intra-hospital location before ICU admission Operating room 7537
    Other 552
    Other ICU 698
    Recovery room 482
    Ward 3411
    Missing 916
    Emergency room 5419
    Intermediate care unit/ high dependency unit 562
    ICU admission status Planned admission 6750
    Unplanned admission 12338
    Missing 489
    Acute infection at ICU admission No infection 15254
    Clinically improbable/colonization 342
    Clinically probable/documented 2761
    Microbiologically documented 1206
    Missing 13
    Surgical status No surgical procedure 8437
    Scheduled surgery 6800
    Emergency surgery 3321
    Missing 1019
    ICU discharge - destination Home 438
    Same hospital 14946
    Other hospital 1029
    Missing 3164
    Intrahospital discharge IMCU/HDU 2222
    Other 303
    Other ICU 583
    Recovery room 306
    Ward 12250
    Missing 3855
    ICU discharge - status Planned discharge 14872
    Unplanned discharge 1595
    Missing 3110
    Outcome ICU mortality (%) 15.2

    The predicted mortality risk in the ICU is:
    ...
    %

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    {{ model.survival.PITTitle }}

    {{ model.survival.YNETitle }}

    Result
    Note
    Notes are only visible in the result download and will not be saved by Evidencio

    The predicted mortality risk in the ICU is: %

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    Outcome stratification

    Result interval {{ additionalResult.min }} to {{ additionalResult.max }}

    Conditional information

    Result interpretation

    The SAPS 3 is an externally validated tool that accurately predicts ICU mortality. The score was evaluated and compared with the APACHE II and the SAPS 2. The performance of the SAPS 3 was similar to that of the APACHE II and the SAPSII
    Discrimination of the SAPS 3 model showed c-statistics up to 0.89. The C-SAPS 3 score appeared to have the best calibration curve on visual inspection.

    Y Sakr, C. Krauss, ACKB Amaral, et al. Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit, BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Volume 101, Issue 6, 1 December 2008, Pages 798–803

    {{ file.classification }}

    Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement. See our full disclaimer.

    Comments
    Rating
    Comment
    Please enter a comment of rating
    Comments are visible to anyone

    Model feedback

    No feedback yet 1 Comment {{ model.comments.length }} Comments
    Not rated | On {{ comment.created_at }} {{ comment.user.username }} a no longer registered author wrote:
    {{ comment.content }}
    logo

    Please sign in to enable Evidencio print features

    In order to use the Evidencio print features, you need to be logged in.
    If you don't have an Evidencio Community Account you can create your free personal account at:

    https://www.evidencio.com/registration

    Printed results - Examples {{ new Date().toLocaleString() }}


    Evidencio Community Account Benefits


    With an Evidencio Community account you can:

    • Create and publish your own prediction models.
    • Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
    • Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
    • Validate your models and validate models from other users.
    • Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
    • Use and save prediction models and their data.
    • Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
    • Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
    • Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.
    A personal Evidencio account is free, with no strings attached! Join us and help create clarity, transparency, and efficiency in the creation, validation, and use of medical prediction models.

    Disclaimer: Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement.