Chen C-C, Chong C-F, Liu Y-L, Chen K-C, Wang T-L
Graduate Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Yang-Ming Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Emerg Med J. 2006 Apr;23(4):281-5. doi: 10.1136/emj.2004.020933.
To determine the efficacy of the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score in the stratification of patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with severe sepsis.
Adults who presented to the ED with severe sepsis were retrospectively recruited and divided into group A (MEDS score <12) and group B (MEDS score > or =12). Their outcomes were evaluated with 28 day hospital mortality rate, length of hospital stay, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Discriminatory power of the MEDS score in mortality prediction was further compared with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II model.
In total, 276 patients (44.6% men and 55.4% women) were analysed, with 143 patients placed in group A and 133 patients in group B. Patients with MEDS score > or =12 had a significantly higher mortality rate (48.9% v 17.5%, p<0.01) and higher median APACHE II score (25 v 20 points, p<0.01). Significant difference in mortality risk was also demonstrated with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log rank test, p<0.01). No difference in the length of hospital stay was found between the groups. ROC analysis indicated a better performance in mortality prediction by the MEDS score compared with the APACHE II score (ROC 0.75 v 0.62, p<0.01).
Our results showed that mortality risk stratification of severe sepsis patients in the ED with MEDS score is effective. The MEDS score also discriminated better than the APACHE II model in mortality prediction.
确定急诊科脓毒症死亡率(MEDS)评分对因严重脓毒症就诊于急诊科(ED)患者进行分层的有效性。
回顾性招募因严重脓毒症就诊于急诊科的成人患者,并分为A组(MEDS评分<12)和B组(MEDS评分≥12)。通过28天住院死亡率、住院时间、Kaplan-Meier生存分析和受试者工作特征(ROC)分析评估其结局。将MEDS评分在死亡率预测中的鉴别能力与急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)II模型进行进一步比较。
共分析了276例患者(男性44.6%,女性55.4%),其中143例患者分入A组,133例患者分入B组。MEDS评分≥12的患者死亡率显著更高(48.9%对17.5%,p<0.01),APACHE II评分中位数更高(25分对20分,p<0.01)。Kaplan-Meier生存分析也显示死亡率风险存在显著差异(对数秩检验,p<0.01)。两组间住院时间无差异。ROC分析表明,与APACHE II评分相比,MEDS评分在死亡率预测方面表现更好(ROC 0.75对0.62,p<0.01)。
我们的结果表明,使用MEDS评分对急诊科严重脓毒症患者进行死亡风险分层是有效的。在死亡率预测方面,MEDS评分的鉴别能力也优于APACHE II模型。