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

1
Parenclitic network mapping predicts survival in critically ill patients with sepsis.
Physiol Rep. 2025 Jun;13(11):e70407. doi: 10.14814/phy2.70407.
2
Early Prediction of Septic Shock in Emergency Department Using Serum Metabolites.
J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2025 Jun 4;36(6):1264-1276. doi: 10.1021/jasms.5c00009. Epub 2025 May 9.
4
Early sepsis recognition: a pilot study using a rapid high-multiplex host-response mRNA diagnostic test.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025 Feb 21;13(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40635-025-00735-x.
5
IMPLICATIONS OF YWHAH GENE EXPRESSION IN THE EARLY DETECTION OF SEPSIS.
Shock. 2024 Sep 1;62(3):357-362. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002409. Epub 2024 Jun 21.
10
Sepsis biomarkers and diagnostic tools with a focus on machine learning.
EBioMedicine. 2022 Dec;86:104394. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104394. Epub 2022 Dec 2.

本文引用的文献

2
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
3
Sepsis guideline implementation: benefits, pitfalls and possible solutions.
Crit Care. 2014 Mar 18;18(2):207. doi: 10.1186/cc13774.
4
Comparison of risks factors for unplanned ICU transfer after ED admission in patients with infections and those without infections.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 2;2014:102929. doi: 10.1155/2014/102929. eCollection 2014.
5
A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370(18):1683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1401602. Epub 2014 Mar 18.
6
Two decades of mortality trends among patients with severe sepsis: a comparative meta-analysis*.
Crit Care Med. 2014 Mar;42(3):625-31. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000026.
8
Outcome predictors of uncomplicated sepsis.
Int J Emerg Med. 2013 Apr 8;6(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1865-1380-6-9.
10
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Feb;39(2):165-228. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8. Epub 2013 Jan 30.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验