All authors: Department of Surgery and Critical Care, Burn Center, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jul;46(7):e656-e662. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003144.
We evaluated the ability of new sepsis (S3) criteria (compared with previous definitions of sepsis [S1] and burn sepsis criteria) to accurately determine the mortality in severe burns patients with sepsis.
This was retrospective cohort study.
The Burn ICU of Burn Center, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea.
A total of 1,185 adult patients (mean age, 49.1 yr) were admitted between January 2009 and December 2015.
The 1,185 patients enrolled in the present study and were then re-evaluated based on S1, burn sepsis, and S3 criteria, following which 565 patients, 812 patients, and 809 patients were diagnosed with sepsis based on S1, burn sepsis, S3 criteria, respectively.
For diagnostic performance, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and likelihood ratio were calculated. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to determine the accuracy of mortality prediction. The optimal cutoff value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was calculated by the decision tree method. Total body surface area burned was 33.4%. Patients were identified with sepsis using S1 (812), S3 (809), and burn sepsis (565) criteria. Overall mortality was 20.3%, highest (82.2%) and lowest (26.5%) occurred with new septic shock (SH3) and S3, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for burn sepsis (84.6% and 61.8%) and SH3 (63.1% and 96.5%) were reported. Area under the curve values for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were the highest in all sepsis categories. With Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 6 (with infection), the accuracy was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89).
The S3 criteria failed to show superior prognostic accuracy for mortality in severely burned patients. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 6 may be a better criterion for the diagnosis of sepsis in burns patients.
我们评估了新的脓毒症(S3)标准(与脓毒症的先前定义[S1]和烧伤脓毒症标准相比)在确定严重烧伤合并脓毒症患者死亡率方面的准确性。
这是一项回顾性队列研究。
韩国翰林大学圣心哈林医院烧伤中心烧伤 ICU。
共有 1185 名成年患者(平均年龄 49.1 岁)于 2009 年 1 月至 2015 年 12 月期间入院。
本研究共纳入 1185 名患者,然后根据 S1、烧伤脓毒症和 S3 标准重新评估,根据 S1、烧伤脓毒症和 S3 标准,分别诊断 565 例、812 例和 809 例患者患有脓毒症。
对于诊断性能,计算了灵敏度、特异性、预测值和似然比。计算了接收者操作特征曲线下的面积以确定死亡率预测的准确性。通过决策树方法计算序贯器官衰竭评估评分的最佳截断值。总体表烧伤面积为 33.4%。使用 S1(812)、S3(809)和烧伤脓毒症(565)标准诊断为脓毒症的患者。总体死亡率为 20.3%,新脓毒症休克(SH3)和 S3 时死亡率最高(82.2%)和最低(26.5%)。报道了烧伤脓毒症(84.6%和 61.8%)和 SH3(63.1%和 96.5%)的灵敏度和特异性。序贯器官衰竭评估评分的曲线下面积在所有脓毒症类别中均最高。序贯器官衰竭评估评分大于或等于 6(有感染)时,准确性为 0.86(95%CI,0.82-0.89)。
S3 标准未能显示出在严重烧伤患者中对死亡率具有更高的预后准确性。序贯器官衰竭评估评分大于或等于 6 可能是烧伤患者脓毒症诊断的更好标准。