Suppr超能文献

qSOFA用于脓毒症-3诊断的准确性:一项基于人群队列研究的二次分析

Accuracy of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis-3: a secondary analysis of a population-based cohort study.

作者信息

Tian Hongcheng, Zhou Jianfang, Weng Li, Hu Xiaoyun, Peng Jinmin, Wang Chunyao, Jiang Wei, Du Xueping, Xi Xiuming, An Youzhong, Duan Meili, Du Bin

机构信息

Medical ICU, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.

Department of Critical Care Medicine, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100068, China.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):2034-2042. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.04.90.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for the diagnosis of sepsis-3, and to analyze the prognosis of infected patients in wards over-diagnosed with qSOFA but missed by sepsis-3, and those missed by qSOFA but in accordance with sepsis-3 criteria. We also intended to validate the performance of qSOFA as one predictor of outcome in patients with suspicion of infection.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 1,716 adult patients with infection who were hospitalized from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 in the Yuetan subdistrict of Beijing, China. Based on the sepsis-3 criteria and qSOFA score proposed by the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock, these patients were categorized into four groups: qSOFA(-)sepsis(-), qSOFA(+)sepsis(-), qSOFA(-)sepsis(+), and qSOFA(+)sepsis(+). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) of the qSOFA(+) group were compared with the sepsis(+) group for in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation.

RESULTS

Among the 1,716 patients with infection, there were 935 patients (54.5%) with sepsis, and 640 patients (37.3%) with qSOFA ≥2. There were 610 patients in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(-) group, 171 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(-) group, 466 in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(+) group, and 469 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(+) group. In the logistic regression analysis, increasing age, bedridden status, and malignancy were all independent risk factors of hospital mortality. Sepsis and qSOFA ≥2 were also independent risk factors of hospital mortality, with an adjusted OR of 3.85 (95% CI: 2.70-5.50) and 13.92 (95% CI: 9.87-16.93) respectively. qSOFA had a sensitivity of 50.2% and a specificity of 78.1% for sepsis-3. The false-positive [qSOFA(+)sepsis(-)] group had 38 patients (22.2%) die during hospitalization, and an adjusted OR of 9.20 (95% CI: 4.86-17.38). In addition, the false-negative [qSOFA(-)sepsis(+)] group had a hospital mortality rate of 7.3% (34/466) and an adjusted OR of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.39-4.83). In comparison, patients meeting neither qSOFA nor sepsis criteria had the lowest hospital mortality [2.6% (16/610)], whereas patients with both qSOFA ≥2 and sepsis had the highest hospital mortality [56.5% (265/469)], with an adjusted OR of 42.02 (95% CI: 24.31-72.64). The discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA (AUROC, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.824-0.868) was greater compared with sepsis-3 criteria (AUROC, 0.834; 95% CI, 0.805-0.863; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our analysis, the sensitivity(Se) of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis was lower, and qSOFA score ≥2 might identify a group of patients at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of being septic or not.

摘要

背景

我们旨在评估快速序贯(与脓毒症相关的)器官功能衰竭评估(qSOFA)对脓毒症-3诊断的准确性,并分析在病房中被qSOFA过度诊断但被脓毒症-3漏诊的感染患者,以及被qSOFA漏诊但符合脓毒症-3标准的患者的预后情况。我们还打算验证qSOFA作为疑似感染患者预后预测指标的性能。

方法

我们回顾了2012年7月1日至2014年6月30日在中国北京月坛街道住院的1716例成年感染患者的病历。根据《脓毒症和脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义》提出的脓毒症-3标准和qSOFA评分,将这些患者分为四组:qSOFA(-)脓毒症(-)、qSOFA(+)脓毒症(-)、qSOFA(-)脓毒症(+)和qSOFA(+)脓毒症(+)。采用多因素逻辑回归分析确定院内死亡的独立危险因素。比较qSOFA(+)组与脓毒症(+)组在院内死亡、入住重症监护病房(ICU)和有创通气方面的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROCs)。

结果

在1716例感染患者中,有935例(54.5%)患有脓毒症,640例(37.3%)的qSOFA≥2。qSOFA(-)脓毒症(-)组有610例患者,qSOFA(+)脓毒症(-)组有171例患者,qSOFA(-)脓毒症(+)组有466例患者,qSOFA(+)脓毒症(+)组有469例患者。在逻辑回归分析中,年龄增加、卧床状态和恶性肿瘤均为院内死亡的独立危险因素。脓毒症和qSOFA≥2也是院内死亡的独立危险因素,调整后的比值比(OR)分别为3.85(95%置信区间:2.70-5.50)和13.92(95%置信区间:9.87-16.93)。qSOFA对脓毒症-3的敏感性为50.2%,特异性为78.1%。假阳性[qSOFA(+)脓毒症(-)]组有38例患者(22.2%)在住院期间死亡,调整后的OR为9.20(95%置信区间:4.86-17.38)。此外,假阴性[qSOFA(-)脓毒症(+)]组的院内死亡率为7.3%(34/466),调整后的OR为2.59(95%置信区间:1.39-4.83)。相比之下,既不符合qSOFA也不符合脓毒症标准的患者院内死亡率最低[2.6%(16/610)],而qSOFA≥2且患有脓毒症的患者院内死亡率最高[56.5%(265/469)],调整后的OR为42.02(95%置信区间:24.31-72.64)。与脓毒症-标准相比,使用qSOFA对院内死亡的鉴别能力(AUROC,0.846;95%置信区间,0.824-0.868)更强(脓毒症-3标准的AUROC为0.834;95%置信区间,0.805-0.863;P<0.001)。

结论

在我们的分析中,qSOFA对脓毒症诊断的敏感性较低,且qSOFA评分≥2可能识别出一组死亡风险较高的患者,无论其是否患有脓毒症。

相似文献

1
4
[Diagnosis accuracy of quick sequential organ failure assessment score for adult sepsis patient with soft tissue infection].
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2019 Aug;31(8):933-937. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.08.004.
5
Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with Sepsis.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019 Apr 30;27(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13049-019-0609-3.
8
[A multicenter confirmatory study about precision and practicability of Sepsis-3].
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2017 Feb;29(2):99-105. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.02.002.
9
Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.
J Intensive Care. 2019 Aug 7;7:41. doi: 10.1186/s40560-019-0396-y. eCollection 2019.

引用本文的文献

5
Biomarker-Based Assessment Model for Detecting Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
J Pers Med. 2023 Jul 27;13(8):1195. doi: 10.3390/jpm13081195.
8
A simple measure to improve sepsis documentation and coding.
Clin Med (Lond). 2021 May;21(3):222-225. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0868.
9
[Critical statement on selected recommendations of the new German S3 Sepsis Guideline].
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2020 Sep;115(6):505-507. doi: 10.1007/s00063-020-00720-0.
10
Comparison of Monocyte Distribution Width (MDW) and Procalcitonin for early recognition of sepsis.
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227300. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Raising concerns about the Sepsis-3 definitions.
World J Emerg Surg. 2018 Jan 25;13:6. doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0165-6. eCollection 2018.
4
Defining sepsis on the wards: results of a multi-centre point-prevalence study comparing two sepsis definitions.
Anaesthesia. 2018 Feb;73(2):195-204. doi: 10.1111/anae.14062. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
5
Development of a Simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for Risk Assessment of Emergency Department Patients With Sepsis.
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar;35(3):270-278. doi: 10.1177/0885066617741284. Epub 2017 Nov 15.
7
Population-Based Epidemiology of Sepsis in a Subdistrict of Beijing.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Jul;45(7):1168-1176. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002414.

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