使用里士满躁动-镇静量表的改良序贯器官衰竭评估评分的有效性
Validity of a Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.
作者信息
Vasilevskis Eduard E, Pandharipande Pratik P, Graves Amy J, Shintani Ayumi, Tsuruta Ryosuke, Ely E Wesley, Girard Timothy D
机构信息
1Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.2Section of Hospital Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.3Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN.4Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.5Anesthesia Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN.6Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.7Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.8Advanced Medical Emergency and Critical Care Center, Yamaguchi University Hospital, Yamaguchi, Japan.9Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.
出版信息
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):138-46. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001375.
OBJECTIVES
The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and other severity of illness scales rely on the Glasgow Coma Scale to measure acute neurologic dysfunction, but the Glasgow Coma Scale is unavailable or inconsistently applied in some institutions. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment that uses the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale instead of Glasgow Coma Scale.
DESIGN
Prospective cohort study.
SETTING
Medical and surgical ICUs within a large, tertiary care hospital.
PATIENTS
Critically ill medical/surgical ICU patients.
INTERVENTIONS
We calculated daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores by using electronic medical record-derived data. By using bedside nurse-recorded Glasgow Coma Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale measures, we calculated neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores using the original Glasgow Coma Scale-based approach and a novel Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based approach, converting the 10-point Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to a 4-point neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. We assessed construct validity of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment by analyzing correlations with established severity of illness constructs (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and predictive validity by using logistic regression to determine whether Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment predicts ICU, hospital, and 1-year mortality. We assessed discriminative performance with c-statistics.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Among 513 patients (5,199 patient-days), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was strongly correlated with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II acute physiology score at enrollment (r = 0.583; 95% CI, 0.518-0.642) and daily Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (r = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.956-0.968). Mean Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores predicted ICU mortality (areas under the curve = 0.814)-as did mean Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.799)-as well as hospital and 1-year mortality. Admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, whether using Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale or Glasgow Coma Scale, were less accurate predictors of mortality; areas under the curves for ICU mortality for Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, for example, were 0.622 and 0.608, respectively.
CONCLUSION
A modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score that uses bedside Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale when Glasgow Coma Scale data are not available is a valid means of assessing daily severity of illness in the ICU and may be valuable for risk-adjustment and benchmarking purposes.
目的
序贯器官衰竭评估(Sequential Organ Failure Assessment,SOFA)及其他疾病严重程度量表依赖格拉斯哥昏迷量表(Glasgow Coma Scale,GCS)来衡量急性神经功能障碍,但在一些机构中,格拉斯哥昏迷量表无法获取或应用不一致。本研究的目的是评估一种改良的序贯器官衰竭评估方法的有效性,该方法使用里士满躁动镇静量表(Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale,RASS)代替格拉斯哥昏迷量表。
设计
前瞻性队列研究。
地点
一家大型三级医疗中心医院的内科和外科重症监护病房。
患者
内科/外科重症监护病房的危重症患者。
干预措施
我们使用电子病历衍生数据计算每日序贯器官衰竭评估分数。通过床边护士记录的格拉斯哥昏迷量表和里士满躁动镇静量表测量值,我们采用基于原始格拉斯哥昏迷量表的方法和一种基于里士满躁动镇静量表的新方法计算神经序贯器官衰竭评估分数,将10分的里士满躁动镇静量表转换为4分的神经序贯器官衰竭评估分数。我们通过分析与既定疾病严重程度指标(急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II,APACHE II]和基于格拉斯哥昏迷量表的序贯器官衰竭评估)的相关性来评估基于里士满躁动镇静量表的序贯器官衰竭评估的结构效度,并使用逻辑回归来确定基于里士满躁动镇静量表的序贯器官衰竭评估是否能预测重症监护病房(ICU)、医院和1年死亡率,以此评估预测效度。我们用c统计量评估鉴别性能。
测量指标和主要结果
在513例患者(5199个患者日)中,基于里士满躁动镇静量表的序贯器官衰竭评估与入组时的急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II急性生理评分密切相关(r = 0.583;95%置信区间[CI],0.518 - 0.642),与每日基于格拉斯哥昏迷量表的序贯器官衰竭评估分数也密切相关(r = 0.963;95% CI,0.956 - 0.968)。基于里士满躁动镇静量表的序贯器官衰竭评估平均分数可预测ICU死亡率(曲线下面积 = 0.814),基于格拉斯哥昏迷量表的序贯器官衰竭评估平均分数(0.799)也可预测,同时还能预测医院和1年死亡率。无论使用里士满躁动镇静量表还是格拉斯哥昏迷量表,入院时的序贯器官衰竭评估分数对死亡率的预测准确性较低;例如,基于里士满躁动镇静量表和基于格拉斯哥昏迷量表的序贯器官衰竭评估对ICU死亡率的曲线下面积分别为0.622和0.608。
结论
当无法获取格拉斯哥昏迷量表数据时,使用床边里士满躁动镇静量表的改良序贯器官衰竭评估分数是评估ICU每日疾病严重程度的有效方法,可能对风险调整和基准比较有价值。
相似文献
J Crit Care. 2016-8
Crit Care Med. 1995-10
引用本文的文献
Crit Care Explor. 2022-5-13
本文引用的文献
N Engl J Med. 2013-10-3
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012-2
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011-3-17
Health Informatics J. 2010-3