• 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

快速序贯器官衰竭评估对疑似感染入院患者的住院死亡率预测准确性随合并症负担的增加而降低。

Predictive Accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for Hospital Mortality Decreases With Increasing Comorbidity Burden Among Patients Admitted for Suspected Infection.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.

Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug;47(8):1081-1088. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003815.

DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003815
PMID:31306256
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool to predict mortality across increasing levels of comorbidity burden.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Twelve acute care hospitals in the Southeastern United States.

PATIENTS

A total of 52,187 patients with suspected infection presenting to the Emergency Department between January 2014 and September 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We used electronic health record data to calculate quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment risk scores from vital signs and laboratory values documented during the first 24 hours. We calculated Charlson Comorbidity Index scores to quantify comorbidity burden. We constructed logistic regression models to evaluate differences in the performance of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2 to predict hospital mortality in patients with no documented (Charlson Comorbidity Index = 0), low (Charlson Comorbidity Index = 1-2), moderate (Charlson Comorbidity Index = 3-4), or high (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 5) comorbidity burden. Among the cohort, 2,030 patients died in the hospital (4%). No comorbidities were documented for 5,038 patients (10%), 9,235 patients (18%) had low comorbidity burden, 12,649 patients (24%) had moderate comorbidity burden, and 25,265 patients (48%) had high comorbidity burden. Overall model discrimination for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2 was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72). A model including both quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Charlson Comorbidity Index had improved discrimination compared with Charlson Comorbidity Index alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.76-0.78 vs area under the curve, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.59-0.62). Discrimination was highest among patients with no documented comorbidities (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.84; 95% CI; 0.79-0.89) and lowest among high comorbidity patients (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.68). The strength of association between quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and mortality ranged from 30.5-fold increased likelihood in patients with no comorbidities to 4.7-fold increased likelihood in patients with high comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment to predict hospital mortality diminishes with increasing comorbidity burden. Patients with comorbidities may have baseline abnormalities in quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment variables that reduce predictive accuracy. Additional research is needed to better understand quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment performance across different comorbid conditions with modification that incorporates the context of changes to baseline variables.

摘要

目的

评估快速序贯器官衰竭评估工具在预测不同合并症负担水平下死亡率的准确性。

设计

回顾性观察性队列研究。

地点

美国东南部的 12 家急性护理医院。

患者

2014 年 1 月至 2017 年 9 月期间急诊科疑似感染就诊的共 52187 名患者。

干预措施

无。

测量和主要结果

主要结局为医院死亡率。我们使用电子健康记录数据,根据 24 小时内记录的生命体征和实验室值计算快速序贯器官衰竭评估风险评分。我们计算了 Charlson 合并症指数评分,以量化合并症负担。我们构建了逻辑回归模型,以评估无记录合并症(Charlson 合并症指数=0)、低合并症(Charlson 合并症指数=1-2)、中合并症(Charlson 合并症指数=3-4)或高合并症(Charlson 合并症指数≥5)的患者中,快速序贯器官衰竭评估大于或等于 2 预测医院死亡率的表现差异。在队列中,2030 名患者在医院死亡(4%)。有 5038 名患者(10%)无合并症记录,9235 名患者(18%)合并症负担低,12649 名患者(24%)合并症负担中等,25265 名患者(48%)合并症负担高。快速序贯器官衰竭评估大于或等于 2 的整体模型区分度为受试者工作特征曲线下面积为 0.71(95%CI,0.69-0.72)。与仅 Charlson 合并症指数相比,包括快速序贯器官衰竭评估和 Charlson 合并症指数的模型具有更好的区分度(受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.77;95%CI,0.76-0.78 与曲线下面积,0.61;95%CI,0.59-0.62)。在无记录合并症的患者中,区分度最高(快速序贯器官衰竭评估受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.84;95%CI,0.79-0.89),在高合并症患者中最低(快速序贯器官衰竭评估受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.67;95%CI,0.65-0.68)。快速序贯器官衰竭评估与死亡率之间的关联强度从无合并症患者的 30.5 倍增加到高合并症患者的 4.7 倍。

结论

快速序贯器官衰竭评估预测死亡率的准确性随着合并症负担的增加而降低。合并症患者的快速序贯器官衰竭评估变量可能存在基线异常,降低了预测准确性。需要进一步研究以更好地了解不同合并症条件下快速序贯器官衰竭评估的表现,并进行修改,以纳入基线变量变化的背景。

相似文献

1
Predictive Accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for Hospital Mortality Decreases With Increasing Comorbidity Burden Among Patients Admitted for Suspected Infection.快速序贯器官衰竭评估对疑似感染入院患者的住院死亡率预测准确性随合并症负担的增加而降低。
Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug;47(8):1081-1088. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003815.
2
Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria as Predictors of Critical Care Intervention Among Patients With Suspected Infection.快速序贯器官衰竭评估和全身炎症反应综合征标准作为疑似感染患者重症监护干预预测指标的研究
Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov;45(11):1813-1819. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002622.
3
Evaluation of Repeated Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment Measurements Among Patients With Suspected Infection.疑似感染患者中反复快速脓毒症相关器官衰竭评估测量的评估。
Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;46(12):1906-1913. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003360.
4
External Validation of the "Quick" Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 Score Using a Large North American Cohort of Critically Ill Children With Suspected Infection.利用大型北美疑似感染危重病儿童队列对“快速”儿科逻辑器官功能障碍-2 评分进行外部验证。
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;19(12):1114-1119. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001729.
5
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.
6
A Comparison of the Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment Score and the National Early Warning Score in Non-ICU Patients With/Without Infection.快速序贯器官衰竭评估评分与国家早期预警评分在非 ICU 感染/非感染患者中的比较。
Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;46(12):1923-1933. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003359.
7
Investigating the Impact of Different Suspicion of Infection Criteria on the Accuracy of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and Early Warning Scores.探讨不同感染怀疑标准对快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估、全身炎症反应综合征及预警评分准确性的影响。
Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov;45(11):1805-1812. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002648.
8
Mortality Risk Using a Pediatric Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment Varies With Vital Sign Thresholds.使用小儿快速序贯(Sepsis-related)器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)的死亡率风险随生命体征阈值变化而变化。
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2018 Aug;19(8):e394-e402. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001598.
9
Time to Recognition of Sepsis in the Emergency Department Using Electronic Health Record Data: A Comparative Analysis of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.急诊科使用电子健康记录数据识别脓毒症的时间:全身炎症反应综合征、序贯器官衰竭评估和快速序贯器官衰竭评估的比较分析。
Crit Care Med. 2020 Feb;48(2):200-209. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004132.
10
Quick sequential organ failure assessment score combined with other sepsis-related risk factors to predict in-hospital mortality: Post-hoc analysis of prospective multicenter study data.快速序贯器官衰竭评估评分结合其他脓毒症相关危险因素预测住院死亡率:前瞻性多中心研究数据的事后分析。
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0254343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254343. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Accuracy of the Identification and Prognosis Prediction of SOFA-Based Sepsis-3 for Septic Patients in the Emergency Department Compared With Sepsis-2.与脓毒症-2相比,急诊科基于序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)的脓毒症-3对脓毒症患者的识别及预后预测准确性
Emerg Med Int. 2025 Feb 11;2025:1762179. doi: 10.1155/emmi/1762179. eCollection 2025.
2
The trajectory of very old critically ill patients.非常高龄危重症患者的转归。
Intensive Care Med. 2024 Feb;50(2):181-194. doi: 10.1007/s00134-023-07298-z. Epub 2024 Jan 18.