文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

四项预后评分在巴西重症监护病房癌症患者中的验证:一项前瞻性多中心研究的结果。

Validation of four prognostic scores in patients with cancer admitted to Brazilian intensive care units: results from a prospective multicenter study.

机构信息

ICU, Hospital de Câncer-I, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Centro de Tratamento Intensivo, 10 degrees Andar; Pça. Cruz Vermelha, 23, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20230-130, Brazil.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2010 Jul;36(7):1188-95. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1807-7. Epub 2010 Mar 11.


DOI:10.1007/s00134-010-1807-7
PMID:20221751
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to validate the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and 3 (SAPS 3), the Mortality Probability Models III (MPM(0)-III), and the Cancer Mortality Model (CMM) in patients with cancer admitted to several intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: Seven hundred and seventeen consecutive patients (solid tumors 93%; hematological malignancies 7%) included over a 2-month period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The main reasons for ICU admission were postoperative care (57%), sepsis (15%) and respiratory failure (10%). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 21 and 30%, respectively. When all 717 patients were evaluated, discrimination was superior for both SAPS II (AROC = 0.84) and SAPS 3 (AROC = 0.84) scores compared to CMM (AROC = 0.79) and MPM(0)-III (AROC = 0.71) scores (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Calibration was better using CMM and the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for South American countries (CSA). MPM(0)-III, SAPS II and standard SAPS 3 scores underestimated mortality (standardized mortality ratio, SMR > 1), while CMM tended to overestimation (SMR = 0.48). However, using the SAPS 3 for CSA resulted in more precise estimations of the probability of death [SMR = 1.02 (95% confidence interval = 0.87-1.19)]. Similar results were observed when scheduled surgical patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, the customized equation of SAPS 3 score for CSA was found to be accurate in predicting outcomes in cancer patients requiring ICU admission.

摘要

目的:本研究旨在验证 SAPS II 和 SAPS 3、MPM(0)-III 和 CMM 在多个重症监护病房(ICU)收治的癌症患者中的准确性。

设计:前瞻性多中心队列研究。

设置:巴西 28 个 ICU。

患者:连续纳入 717 例患者(实体瘤 93%;血液恶性肿瘤 7%),为期 2 个月。

干预措施:无。

测量和主要结果:通过接受者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)评估区分度,通过 Hosmer-Lemeshow 拟合优度检验评估校准度。入住 ICU 的主要原因是术后护理(57%)、脓毒症(15%)和呼吸衰竭(10%)。ICU 和医院死亡率分别为 21%和 30%。当评估所有 717 例患者时,SAPS II(AUC = 0.84)和 SAPS 3(AUC = 0.84)评分的区分度均优于 CMM(AUC = 0.79)和 MPM(0)-III(AUC = 0.71)评分(所有比较 P<0.05)。校准度使用 CMM 和为南美洲国家定制的 SAPS 3 评分方程更好(CSA)。MPM(0)-III、SAPS II 和标准 SAPS 3 评分低估死亡率(标准化死亡率比,SMR>1),而 CMM 则倾向于高估(SMR = 0.48)。然而,使用 CSA 的 SAPS 3 可更准确地估计死亡概率[SMR = 1.02(95%置信区间= 0.87-1.19)]。排除择期手术患者后也观察到类似的结果。

结论:在这项多中心研究中,为 CSA 定制的 SAPS 3 评分方程在预测需要入住 ICU 的癌症患者的结局方面是准确的。

相似文献

[1]
Validation of four prognostic scores in patients with cancer admitted to Brazilian intensive care units: results from a prospective multicenter study.

Intensive Care Med. 2010-3-11

[2]
Validation of the SAPS 3 admission prognostic model in patients with cancer in need of intensive care.

Intensive Care Med. 2006-11

[3]
Performance of three prognostic models in critically ill patients with cancer: a prospective study.

Int J Clin Oncol. 2020-3-24

[4]
Assessment of six mortality prediction models in patients admitted with severe sepsis and septic shock to the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study.

Crit Care. 2003-10

[5]
Performance of three prognostic models in patients with cancer in need of intensive care in a medical center in China.

PLoS One. 2015-6-25

[6]
A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, multinational study. The European/North American Severity Study Group.

Crit Care Med. 1995-8

[7]
Performance of six severity-of-illness scores in cancer patients requiring admission to the intensive care unit: a prospective observational study.

Crit Care. 2004-8

[8]
Performance of the third-generation models of severity scoring systems (APACHE IV, SAPS 3 and MPM-III) in acute kidney injury critically ill patients.

Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011-4-19

[9]
Performance of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 In Predicting Hospital Mortality In Emergency Intensive Care Unit.

Chin Med J (Engl). 2017-7-5

[10]
Accuracy of a composite score using daily SAPS II and LOD scores for predicting hospital mortality in ICU patients hospitalized for more than 72 h.

Intensive Care Med. 2001-6

引用本文的文献

[1]
Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet): shaping the landscape of critical care research in Brazil and beyond.

Crit Care Sci. 2025-6-20

[2]
Evaluating the MPM III and SAPS III prognostic models in a war-affected, resource-limited setting: a prospective study from the Gaza Strip.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2025-5-6

[3]
Mortality rate analysis of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit on day 28.

Biomed Rep. 2024-8-1

[4]
The value of five scoring systems in predicting the prognosis of patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory failure.

Sci Rep. 2024-2-27

[5]
In-hospital mortality and one-year survival of critically ill patients with cancer colonized or not with carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: an observational study.

Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023-2-8

[6]
Scoring systems in critically ill: Which one to use in cancer patients?

World J Crit Care Med. 2022-11-9

[7]
Long-Term Outcome of Critically Ill Advanced Cancer Patients Managed in an Intermediate Care Unit.

J Clin Med. 2022-6-16

[8]
Mortality prediction of patients in intensive care units using machine learning algorithms based on electronic health records.

Sci Rep. 2022-5-3

[9]
Comparison of SAPS 3 performance in patients with and without solid tumor admitted to an intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study.

Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020

[10]
Factors associated with survival of patients with solid Cancer alive after intensive care unit discharge between 2005 and 2013.

BMC Cancer. 2021-1-5

本文引用的文献

[1]
Characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring admission to intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study.

Crit Care Med. 2010-1

[2]
The impact of the initial ventilatory strategy on survival in hematological patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

J Crit Care. 2009-8-13

[3]
Critical care management of cancer patients: cause for optimism and need for objectivity.

Curr Opin Oncol. 2009-7

[4]
Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients in European ICUs.

Crit Care. 2009-2-6

[5]
External validation of prognostic models for critically ill patients required substantial sample sizes.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2007-5

[6]
Assessing contemporary intensive care unit outcome: an updated Mortality Probability Admission Model (MPM0-III).

Crit Care Med. 2007-3

[7]
Validation of the SAPS 3 admission prognostic model in patients with cancer in need of intensive care.

Intensive Care Med. 2006-11

[8]
Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients - a review.

Crit Care. 2005-8

[9]
SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: Objectives, methods and cohort description.

Intensive Care Med. 2005-10

[10]
SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission.

Intensive Care Med. 2005-10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索