Suppr超能文献

急诊科脓毒症患者:使用临床印象评分、易感性、感染、反应和器官功能障碍评分或快速序贯器官衰竭评估评分进行分层?

Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?

机构信息

Departments of Emergency Medicine.

Critical Care.

出版信息

Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;25(5):328-334. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000460.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the stratification of sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED) for ICU admission and mortality using the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores with clinical judgement assessed by the ED staff.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study in the ED of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Adult nontrauma patients with suspected infection and at least two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria were included. The primary outcome was direct ED to ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital, 28-day and 6-month mortality, indirect ICU admission and length of stay. Clinical judgement was recorded using the Clinical Impression Scores (CIS), appraised by a nurse and the attending physician. The PIRO and qSOFA scores were calculated from medical records.

RESULTS

We included 193 patients: 103 presented with sepsis, 81 with severe sepsis and nine with septic shock. Fifteen patients required direct ICU admission. The CIS scores of nurse [area under the curve (AUC)=0.896] and the attending physician (AUC=0.861), in conjunction with PIRO (AUC=0.876) and qSOFA scores (AUC=0.849), predicted direct ICU admission. The CIS scores did not predict any of the mortality endpoints. The PIRO score predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.764), 28-day (AUC=0.784) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.695). The qSOFA score also predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.823), 28-day (AUC=0.848) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.620).

CONCLUSION

Clinical judgement is a fast and reliable method to stratify between ICU and general ward admission in ED patients with sepsis. The PIRO and qSOFA scores do not add value to this stratification, but perform better on the prediction of mortality. In sepsis patients, therefore, the principle of 'treat first what kills first' can be supplemented with 'judge first and calculate later'.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较急诊部(ED)中脓毒症患者的分层,以便 ICU 收治和死亡率,方法是使用 PIRO(易感性、感染、反应和器官功能障碍)和 qSOFA(快速序贯器官衰竭评估)评分,以及 ED 工作人员评估的临床判断。

患者和方法

这是一家三级教学医院 ED 的前瞻性观察研究。纳入患有疑似感染且至少有两个全身炎症反应综合征标准的成年非创伤患者。主要结局是直接从 ED 到 ICU 收治。次要结局是住院、28 天和 6 个月死亡率、间接 ICU 收治和住院时间。使用临床印象评分(CIS)记录临床判断,由护士和主治医生评估。PIRO 和 qSOFA 评分从病历中计算得出。

结果

我们纳入了 193 名患者:103 名患有脓毒症,81 名患有严重脓毒症,9 名患有感染性休克。15 名患者需要直接 ICU 收治。护士的 CIS 评分[曲线下面积(AUC)=0.896]和主治医生的 CIS 评分(AUC=0.861),与 PIRO(AUC=0.876)和 qSOFA 评分(AUC=0.849)一起,预测直接 ICU 收治。CIS 评分不能预测任何死亡率终点。PIRO 评分预测住院(AUC=0.764)、28 天(AUC=0.784)和 6 个月死亡率(AUC=0.695)。qSOFA 评分也预测住院(AUC=0.823)、28 天(AUC=0.848)和 6 个月死亡率(AUC=0.620)。

结论

临床判断是一种快速可靠的方法,可对 ED 中脓毒症患者进行 ICU 和普通病房收治的分层。PIRO 和 qSOFA 评分对这种分层没有增加价值,但在预测死亡率方面表现更好。因此,在脓毒症患者中,可以补充“先治致命,后治可治”的原则,即“先判断,后计算”。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5

本文引用的文献

5
8
Outcome predictors of uncomplicated sepsis.非复杂性脓毒症的预后预测因素
Int J Emerg Med. 2013 Apr 8;6(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1865-1380-6-9.

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