Churpek Matthew M, Yuen Trevor C, Winslow Christopher, Hall Jesse, Edelson Dana P
1Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 2Department of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL.
Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):816-22. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000818.
Vital signs and composite scores, such as the Modified Early Warning Score, are used to identify high-risk ward patients and trigger rapid response teams. Although age-related vital sign changes are known to occur, little is known about the differences in vital signs between elderly and nonelderly patients prior to ward cardiac arrest. We aimed to compare the accuracy of vital signs for detecting cardiac arrest between elderly and nonelderly patients.
Observational cohort study.
Five hospitals in the United States.
A total of 269,956 patient admissions to the wards with documented age, including 422 index ward cardiac arrests.
None.
Patient characteristics and vital signs prior to cardiac arrest were compared between elderly (age, 65 yr or older) and nonelderly (age, <65 yr) patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for vital signs and the Modified Early Warning Score were also compared. Elderly patients had a higher cardiac arrest rate (2.2 vs 1.0 per 1,000 ward admissions; p<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs 0.7%; p<0.001) than nonelderly patients. Within 4 hours of cardiac arrest, elderly patients had significantly lower mean heart rate (88 vs 99 beats/min; p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure (60 vs 66 mm Hg; p=0.007), shock index (0.82 vs 0.93; p<0.001), and Modified Early Warning Score (2.6 vs 3.3; p<0.001) and higher pulse pressure index (0.45 vs 0.41; p<0.001) and temperature (36.4°C vs 36.3°C; p=0.047). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for all vital signs and the Modified Early Warning Score were higher for nonelderly patients than elderly patients (Modified Early Warning Score area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88] vs 0.71 [95% CI, 0.68-0.75]; p<0.001).
Vital signs more accurately detect cardiac arrest in nonelderly patients compared with elderly patients, which has important implications for how they are used for identifying critically ill patients. More accurate methods for risk stratification of elderly patients are necessary to decrease the occurrence of this devastating event.
生命体征和综合评分,如改良早期预警评分,用于识别高危病房患者并触发快速反应小组。虽然已知会出现与年龄相关的生命体征变化,但对于病房心脏骤停前老年患者和非老年患者生命体征的差异知之甚少。我们旨在比较老年患者和非老年患者生命体征检测心脏骤停的准确性。
观察性队列研究。
美国的五家医院。
共有269956例有年龄记录的病房入院患者,包括422例索引病房心脏骤停患者。
无。
比较了老年(年龄≥65岁)和非老年(年龄<65岁)患者心脏骤停前的患者特征和生命体征。还比较了生命体征和改良早期预警评分的受试者工作特征曲线下面积。老年患者的心脏骤停率(每1000例病房入院患者中2.2例 vs 1.0例;p<0.001)和住院死亡率(2.9% vs 0.7%;p<0.001)均高于非老年患者。在心脏骤停后4小时内,老年患者的平均心率(88次/分钟 vs 99次/分钟;p<0.001)、舒张压(60 mmHg vs 66 mmHg;p=0.007)、休克指数(0.82 vs 0.93;p<0.001)和改良早期预警评分(2.6 vs 3.3;p<0.001)显著较低,脉压指数(0.45 vs 0.41;p<0.001)和体温(36.4℃ vs 36.3℃;p=0.047)较高。非老年患者所有生命体征和改良早期预警评分的受试者工作特征曲线下面积高于老年患者(改良早期预警评分受试者工作特征曲线下面积0.85 [95%CI,0.82 - 0.88] vs 0.71 [95%CI,0.68 - 0.75];p<0.001)。
与老年患者相比,生命体征在非老年患者中能更准确地检测到心脏骤停,这对于如何将其用于识别重症患者具有重要意义。需要更准确的老年患者风险分层方法以减少这一灾难性事件的发生。