Siddiqui Shahla, Chua Maureen, Kumaresh Venkatesan, Choo Robin
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore.
MOhh, Singapore.
J Crit Care. 2017 Oct;41:191-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.05.017. Epub 2017 May 25.
The 2015 sepsis definitions suggest using the quick SOFA score for risk stratification of sepsis patients among other changes in sepsis definition. Our aim was to validate the q sofa score for diagnosing sepsis and comparing it to traditional scores of pre ICU admission sepsis outcome prediction such as EWS and SIRS in our setting in order to predict mortality and length of stay.
This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrospectively calculated the q sofa, SIRS and EWS scores of all ICU patients admitted with the diagnosis of sepsis at our center in 2015. This was analysed using STATA 12. Logistic regression and ROC curves were used for analysis in addition to descriptive analysis.
58 patients were included in the study. Based on our one year results we have shown that although q SOFA is more sensitive in predicting LOS in ICU of sepsis patients, the EWS score is more sensitive and specific in predicting mortality in the ICU of such patients when compared to q SOFA and SIRS scores.
In conclusion, we find that in our setting, EWS is better than SIRS and q SOFA for predicting mortality and perhaps length of stay as well. The q Sofa score remains validated for diagnosis of sepsis.
2015年脓毒症定义建议在脓毒症定义的其他变化中使用快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）评分对脓毒症患者进行风险分层。我们的目的是验证qSOFA评分在诊断脓毒症方面的有效性，并将其与我们研究环境中ICU入院前脓毒症预后预测的传统评分（如早期预警评分（EWS）和全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）评分）进行比较，以预测死亡率和住院时间。
这是一项回顾性队列研究。我们回顾性计算了2015年在我们中心因脓毒症诊断入院的所有ICU患者的qSOFA、SIRS和EWS评分。使用STATA 12进行分析。除描述性分析外，还使用逻辑回归和ROC曲线进行分析。
58名患者纳入研究。基于我们一年的结果，我们表明，尽管qSOFA在预测脓毒症患者ICU住院时间方面更敏感，但与qSOFA和SIRS评分相比，EWS评分在预测此类患者ICU死亡率方面更敏感且更具特异性。
总之，我们发现在我们的研究环境中，EWS在预测死亡率以及可能的住院时间方面优于SIRS和qSOFA。qSOFA评分在脓毒症诊断方面仍然有效。
