Nguyen H B, Rivers E P, Havstad S, Knoblich B, Ressler J A, Muzzin A M, Tomlanovich M C
Department of Emergency Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital/Case Western Reserve University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Dec;7(12):1354-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00492.x.
The changing landscape of health care in this country has seen an increase in the delivery of care to critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). However, methodologies to assess care and outcomes similar to those used in the intensive care unit (ICU) are currently lacking in this setting. This study examined the impact of ED intervention on morbidity and mortality using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), and the Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS).
This was a prospective, observational cohort study over a three-month period. Critically ill adult patients presenting to a large urban ED and requiring ICU admission were enrolled. APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores and predicted mortality were obtained at ED admission, ED discharge, and 24, 48, and 72 hours in the ICU. In-hospital mortality was recorded.
Eighty-one patients aged 64 +/- 18 years were enrolled during the study period, with a 30.9% in-hospital mortality. The ED length of stay was 5.9 +/- 2.7 hours and the hospital length of stay was 12.2 +/- 16.6 days. Nine (11.1%) patients initially accepted for ICU admission were later admitted to the general ward after ED intervention. Septic shock was the predominant admitting diagnosis. At ED admission, there was a significantly higher APACHE II score in nonsurvivors (23.0 +/- 6.0) vs survivors (19.8 +/- 6.5, p = 0.04), while there was no significant difference in SAPS II or MODS scores. The APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores were significantly lower in survivors than nonsurvivors throughout the hospital stay (p </= 0.001). The hourly rates of change (decreases) in APACHE II, SAPS II, and MODS scores were significantly greater during the ED stay (-0.55 +/- 0.64, -1.02 +/- 1.10, and -0.16 +/- 0.43, respectively) than subsequent periods of hospitalization in survivors (p < 0.05). There was a significant decrease in APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortality during the ED stay (-8.0 +/- 14.0% and -6.0 +/- 14.0%, respectively, p < 0.001) and equally at 24 hours in the ICU (-7.0 +/- 13.0% and -4.0 +/- 16.0%, respectively, p </= 0.02). The APACHE II and SAPS II predicted mortality approached actual in-hospital mortality at approximately 12 hours and 36 hours after ED admission (in the ICU), respectively.
The care provided during the ED stay for critically ill patients significantly impacts the progression of organ failure and mortality. Although this period is brief compared with the total length of hospitalization, physiologic determinants of outcome may be established before ICU admission. This study emphasizes the importance of ED intervention. It also suggests that unique physiologic assessment methodologies should be developed to examine the quality of patient care, improve the accuracy of prognostic decisions, and objectively measure the impact of clinical interventions and pathways in the ED setting.
在该国不断变化的医疗保健格局中,急诊科(ED)对重症患者的护理服务有所增加。然而,目前在这种情况下缺乏类似于重症监护病房(ICU)中使用的评估护理和结局的方法。本研究使用急性生理与慢性健康评估(APACHE II)、简化急性生理学评分(SAPS II)和多器官功能障碍评分(MODS)来检验急诊科干预对发病率和死亡率的影响。
这是一项为期三个月的前瞻性观察队列研究。纳入了就诊于一家大型城市急诊科且需要入住ICU的成年重症患者。在急诊科入院时、急诊科出院时以及在ICU的24、48和72小时获取APACHE II、SAPS II和MODS评分以及预测死亡率。记录住院死亡率。
在研究期间纳入了81例年龄为64±18岁的患者,住院死亡率为30.9%。急诊科住院时间为5.9±2.7小时,住院时间为12.2±16.6天。9例(11.1%)最初被接受入住ICU的患者在急诊科干预后后来被转入普通病房。感染性休克是主要的入院诊断。在急诊科入院时,非幸存者的APACHE II评分(23.0±6.0)显著高于幸存者(19.8±6.5,p = 0.04),而SAPS II或MODS评分无显著差异。在整个住院期间,幸存者的APACHE II、SAPS II和MODS评分显著低于非幸存者(p≤0.001)。在幸存者中,APACHE II、SAPS II和MODS评分在急诊科住院期间的每小时变化率(下降)显著大于随后的住院期间(分别为-0.55±0.64、-1.02±1.10和-0.16±0.43,p < 0.05)。在急诊科住院期间,APACHE II和SAPS II预测死亡率显著下降(分别为-8.0±14.0%和-6.0±14.0%,p < 0.001),在ICU的24小时时同样下降(分别为-7.0±13.0%和-4.0±16.0%,p≤0.02)。APACHE II和SAPS II预测死亡率分别在急诊科入院后约12小时和36小时(在ICU)接近实际住院死亡率。
急诊科对重症患者提供的护理对器官衰竭的进展和死亡率有显著影响。尽管与住院总时长相比这段时间较短,但在入住ICU之前可能就已确定结局的生理决定因素。本研究强调了急诊科干预的重要性。它还表明应开发独特的生理评估方法来检查患者护理质量、提高预后决策的准确性,并客观衡量急诊科环境中临床干预和路径的影响。