Suppr超能文献

快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估、全身炎症反应综合征及早期预警评分用于检测重症监护病房以外感染患者的临床病情恶化

Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and Early Warning Scores for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Infected Patients outside the Intensive Care Unit.

作者信息

Churpek Matthew M, Snyder Ashley, Han Xuan, Sokol Sarah, Pettit Natasha, Howell Michael D, Edelson Dana P

机构信息

1 Department of Medicine.

2 Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation, and.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr 1;195(7):906-911. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0854OC.

Abstract

RATIONALE

The 2016 definitions of sepsis included the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score to identify high-risk patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare qSOFA with other commonly used early warning scores.

METHODS

All admitted patients who first met the criteria for suspicion of infection in the emergency department (ED) or hospital wards from November 2008 until January 2016 were included. The qSOFA, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were compared for predicting death and ICU transfer.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 30,677 included patients, 1,649 (5.4%) died and 7,385 (24%) experienced the composite outcome (death or ICU transfer). Sixty percent (n = 18,523) first met the suspicion criteria in the ED. Discrimination for in-hospital mortality was highest for NEWS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.79), followed by MEWS (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.74), qSOFA (AUC, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.67-0.70), and SIRS (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.66) (P < 0.01 for all pairwise comparisons). Using the highest non-ICU score of patients, ≥2 SIRS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 13% for the composite outcome compared with 54% and 67% for qSOFA ≥2, 59% and 70% for MEWS ≥5, and 67% and 66% for NEWS ≥8, respectively. Most patients met ≥2 SIRS criteria 17 hours before the combined outcome compared with 5 hours for ≥2 and 17 hours for ≥1 qSOFA criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly used early warning scores are more accurate than the qSOFA score for predicting death and ICU transfer in non-ICU patients. These results suggest that the qSOFA score should not replace general early warning scores when risk-stratifying patients with suspected infection.

摘要

原理

2016年脓毒症的定义纳入了快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分,以识别重症监护病房(ICU)以外的高危患者。

目的

我们试图将qSOFA与其他常用的早期预警评分进行比较。

方法

纳入2008年11月至2016年1月期间在急诊科(ED)或医院病房首次符合疑似感染标准的所有入院患者。比较qSOFA、全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)、改良早期预警评分(MEWS)和国家早期预警评分(NEWS)对死亡和ICU转入的预测情况。

测量指标及主要结果

在纳入的30677例患者中,1649例(5.4%)死亡,7385例(24%)出现复合结局(死亡或ICU转入)。60%(n = 18523)的患者首次在ED符合疑似标准。对院内死亡率的区分能力NEWS最高(曲线下面积[AUC],0.77;95%置信区间[CI],0.76 - 0.79),其次是MEWS(AUC,0.73;95% CI,0.71 - 0.74)、qSOFA(AUC,0.69;95% CI,0.67 - 0.70)和SIRS(AUC,0.65;95% CI,0.63 - 0.66)(所有两两比较P < 0.01)。对于复合结局,使用患者的最高非ICU评分时,≥2条SIRS标准的敏感性为91%,特异性为13%,而qSOFA≥2时分别为54%和67%,MEWS≥5时分别为59%和70%,NEWS≥8时分别为67%和66%。大多数患者在复合结局出现前17小时符合≥2条SIRS标准,而符合≥2条qSOFA标准为5小时,符合≥1条qSOFA标准为17小时。

结论

对于预测非ICU患者的死亡和ICU转入,常用的早期预警评分比qSOFA评分更准确。这些结果表明,在对疑似感染患者进行风险分层时,qSOFA评分不应取代一般的早期预警评分。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
3
New Sepsis Criteria: A Change We Should Not Make.新的脓毒症标准:一项我们不应做出的改变。
Chest. 2016 May;149(5):1117-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.653. Epub 2016 Feb 27.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验