Macdonald Stephen P J, Arendts Glenn, Fatovich Daniel M, Brown Simon G A
The Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, WA; The Discipline of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA; The Emergency Department, Armadale Health Service Perth, WA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Nov;21(11):1257-63. doi: 10.1111/acem.12515.
The Predisposition Insult Response and Organ failure (PIRO) scoring system has been developed for use in the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify sepsis cases, but has not been well studied among high-risk patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The PIRO score was compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS) scores to predict mortality in ED patients with features suggesting severe sepsis or septic shock in the ED.
This was an analysis of sepsis patients enrolled in a prospective observational ED study of patients presenting with evidence of shock, hypoxemia, or other organ failure. PIRO, MEDS, and SOFA scores were calculated from ED data. Analysis compared areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for 30-day mortality.
Of 240 enrolled patients, final diagnoses were septic shock in 128 (53%), severe sepsis without shock in 70 (29%), and infection with no organ dysfunction in 42 (18%). Forty-eight (20%) patients died within 30 days of presentation. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for mortality was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.92) for PIRO, 0.81 (95% CI = 0.74 to 0.88) for MEDS, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.87) for SOFA scores. Pairwise comparisons of the AUC were as follows: PIRO versus SOFA, p = 0.01; PIRO versus MEDS, p = 0.064; and MEDS versus SOFA; p = 0.37. Mortality increased with increasing PIRO scores: PIRO < 5, 0%; PIRO 5 to 9, 5%; PIRO 10 to 14, 5%; PIRO 15 to 19, 37%; and PIRO ≥ 20, 80% (p < 0.001). The MEDS score also showed increasing mortality with higher scores: MEDS < 5, 0%; MEDS 5 to 7, 12%; MEDS 8 to 11, 15%; MEDS 12 to 14, 48%; and MEDS > 15, 65% (p < 0.001).
The PIRO model, taking into account comorbidities and septic source as well as physiologic status, performed better than the SOFA score and similarly to the MEDS score for predicting mortality in ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. These findings have implications for identifying and managing high-risk patients and for the design of clinical trials in sepsis.
易感性-损伤反应-器官功能衰竭(PIRO)评分系统已开发用于急诊科(ED)对脓毒症病例进行风险分层,但在严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的高危患者中尚未得到充分研究。将PIRO评分与序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分和急诊科脓毒症死亡率(MEDS)评分进行比较,以预测急诊科具有严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克特征的患者的死亡率。
这是一项对脓毒症患者的分析,这些患者参加了一项前瞻性观察性急诊科研究,研究对象为出现休克、低氧血症或其他器官功能衰竭证据的患者。PIRO、MEDS和SOFA评分根据急诊科数据计算得出。分析比较了用于预测30天死亡率的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积。
在240名入组患者中,最终诊断为脓毒性休克的有128例(53%),无休克的严重脓毒症70例(29%),无器官功能障碍的感染42例(18%)。48例(20%)患者在就诊后30天内死亡。PIRO评分预测死亡率的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.86(95%置信区间[CI]=0.80至0.92),MEDS为0.81(95%CI=0.74至0.88),SOFA评分为0.78(95%CI=0.71至0.87)。AUC的两两比较如下:PIRO与SOFA,p=0.01;PIRO与MEDS,p=0.064;MEDS与SOFA,p=0.37。死亡率随PIRO评分升高而增加:PIRO<5,0%;PIRO 5至9,5%;PIRO 10至14,5%;PIRO 15至19,37%;PIRO≥20,80%(p<0.001)。MEDS评分也显示死亡率随分数升高而增加:MEDS<5,0%;MEDS 5至7,12%;MEDS 8至11,15%;MEDS 12至14,48%;MEDS>15,65%(p<0.001)。
PIRO模型在考虑合并症、脓毒症来源以及生理状态的情况下,在预测急诊科严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的死亡率方面比SOFA评分表现更好,与MEDS评分表现相似。这些发现对识别和管理高危患者以及脓毒症临床试验的设计具有重要意义。