• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

新 Sepsis-3 定义在因严重脓毒症和感染性休克从急诊科收入重症监护病房的患者队列中的应用。

Application of the new Sepsis-3 definition in a cohort of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to Intensive Care Unit from the Emergency Department.

机构信息

Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.

Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.

出版信息

Med Clin (Barc). 2019 Jan 4;152(1):13-16. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2018.02.012. Epub 2018 Apr 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.medcli.2018.02.012
PMID:29680459
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

After the publication of the new definition for sepsis and septic shock, our objective is to analyse the evolution of patients admitted to ICU with an infection process using the previous and new recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a sub-analysis of a previous observational prospective study. We included 98 patients admitted to ICU from the emergency department due to infection during an 18-month period. We studied the clinical evolution during ICU admission and hospital mortality.

RESULTS

According to Sepsis-2 definition, 78% percent had septic shock and using Sepsis-3 criteria, 52%; hospital mortality was 29 and 41%, respectively. The RR of hospital mortality of septic shock was 10.3 (95% CI: 2.8-37.5) compared to patients without shock. The 30-day probability survival of patients with sepsis and septic shock were 78% and 68%, respectively (long rank < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, the incorporation of the SOFA score and lactate levels to the new definition could help improve the evaluation of risk of hospital death.

摘要

背景与目的

新的脓毒症和脓毒性休克定义公布后,我们的目的是分析使用以前和新建议对因感染入住 ICU 的患者的演变情况。

材料和方法

这是一项先前观察性前瞻性研究的子分析。我们纳入了在 18 个月期间因感染而从急诊室转入 ICU 的 98 名患者。我们研究了 ICU 住院期间的临床演变和住院死亡率。

结果

根据 Sepsis-2 定义,78%的患者有脓毒性休克,而根据 Sepsis-3 标准,52%的患者有脓毒性休克;住院死亡率分别为 29%和 41%。与无休克患者相比,脓毒性休克患者的住院死亡率 RR 为 10.3(95%CI:2.8-37.5)。患有败血症和脓毒性休克的患者的 30 天生存率分别为 78%和 68%(长期秩<0.001)。

结论

根据我们的经验,将 SOFA 评分和乳酸水平纳入新定义可以帮助改善对住院死亡风险的评估。

相似文献

1
Application of the new Sepsis-3 definition in a cohort of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to Intensive Care Unit from the Emergency Department.新 Sepsis-3 定义在因严重脓毒症和感染性休克从急诊科收入重症监护病房的患者队列中的应用。
Med Clin (Barc). 2019 Jan 4;152(1):13-16. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2018.02.012. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
2
A combination of early warning score and lactate to predict intensive care unit transfer of inpatients with severe sepsis/septic shock.早期预警评分与乳酸相结合以预测严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克住院患者转入重症监护病房的情况。
Korean J Intern Med. 2015 Jul;30(4):471-7. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2015.30.4.471. Epub 2015 Jun 29.
3
The influence of a change in septic shock definitions on intensive care epidemiology and outcome: comparison of sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 definitions.脓毒症休克定义的改变对重症监护流行病学和结局的影响:脓毒症 2 期和脓毒症 3 期定义的比较。
Infect Dis (Lond). 2018 Mar;50(3):207-213. doi: 10.1080/23744235.2017.1383630. Epub 2017 Sep 26.
4
Prognosis of patients excluded by the definition of septic shock based on their lactate levels after initial fluid resuscitation: a prospective multi-center observational study.基于初始液体复苏后乳酸水平对脓毒性休克定义排除的患者的预后:一项前瞻性多中心观察性研究。
Crit Care. 2018 Feb 24;22(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1935-3.
5
Early lactate clearance is associated with improved outcome in severe sepsis and septic shock.早期乳酸清除与严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者预后改善相关。
Crit Care Med. 2004 Aug;32(8):1637-42. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000132904.35713.a7.
6
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?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?
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;25(5):328-334. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000460.
7
[Prognostic value of lipopolysaccharide binding protein and procalcitonin in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to intensive care].[脂多糖结合蛋白和降钙素原在入住重症监护病房的严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者中的预后价值]
Med Intensiva. 2015 May;39(4):207-12. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2014.04.005. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
8
Survival analysis of 314 episodes of sepsis in medical intensive care unit in university hospital: impact of intensive care unit performance and antimicrobial therapy.大学医院医学重症监护病房314例脓毒症发作的生存分析:重症监护病房性能及抗菌治疗的影响
Croat Med J. 2006 Jun;47(3):385-97.
9
Low sensitivity of qSOFA, SIRS criteria and sepsis definition to identify infected patients at risk of complication in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department triage.qSOFA、SIRS 标准和脓毒症定义对识别院前环境和急诊科分诊中感染风险患者的并发症的敏感性较低。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 3;25(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0449-y.
10
Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).脓毒症临床标准评估:针对《脓毒症及脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义》(Sepsis-3)。
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):762-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0288.

引用本文的文献

1
Molecular mechanisms in septic shock (Review).脓毒性休克的分子机制(综述)
Exp Ther Med. 2021 Oct;22(4):1161. doi: 10.3892/etm.2021.10595. Epub 2021 Aug 11.