Department of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.
Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug;47(8):1081-1088. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003815.
Evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool to predict mortality across increasing levels of comorbidity burden.
Retrospective observational cohort study.
Twelve acute care hospitals in the Southeastern United States.
A total of 52,187 patients with suspected infection presenting to the Emergency Department between January 2014 and September 2017.
None.
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.
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.
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。
回顾性观察性队列研究。
美国东南部的 12 家急性护理医院。
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。
无。
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。
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。