• 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

将 qSOFA 标准与初始乳酸水平相结合:提高对脓毒症患者发生危重症的筛选能力。

Combining qSOFA criteria with initial lactate levels: Improved screening of septic patients for critical illness.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, One Cooper Plaza Camden, NJ 08103, United States of America.

Departments of Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiology & Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2020 May;38(5):883-889. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.07.003. Epub 2019 Jul 4.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.07.003
PMID:31320214
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the addition of lactate to Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scoring improves emergency department (ED) screening of septic patients for critical illness.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospital from the ED with infectious disease-related illnesses. We recorded qSOFA criteria and initial lactate levels in the first 6 h of ED stay. Our primary outcome was a composite of hospital death, vasopressor use, and intensive care unit stay ≤72 h of presentation. Diagnostic test characteristics were determined for: 1) lactate levels ≥2 and ≥4; 2) qSOFA scores ≥1, ≥2, and =3; and 3) combinations of these.

RESULTS

Of 3743 patients, 2584 had a lactate drawn ≤6 h of ED stay and 18% met the primary outcome. The qSOFA scores were ≥1, ≥2, and =3 in 59.2%, 22.0%, and 5.3% of patients, respectively, and 34.4% had a lactate level ≥2 and 7.9% had a lactate level ≥4. The combination of qSOFA ≥1 OR Lactate ≥2 had the highest sensitivity, 94.0% (95% CI: 91.3-95.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of qSOFA ≥1 OR Lactate ≥2 provides substantially improved sensitivity for the screening of critical illness compared to isolated lactate and qSOFA thresholds.

摘要

目的

确定在快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分中添加乳酸是否能改善急诊科(ED)对感染性疾病相关疾病患者进行危重病的筛查。

方法

这是一项多中心回顾性队列研究,纳入了从 ED 入院的连续成年感染性疾病相关疾病患者。我们记录了 qSOFA 标准和 ED 留观前 6 小时内的初始乳酸水平。主要结局是包括医院死亡、血管加压素使用和 ICU 入住≤72 小时的复合结局。确定了以下诊断测试特征:1)乳酸水平≥2 和≥4;2)qSOFA 评分≥1、≥2 和=3;3)这些的组合。

结果

在 3743 名患者中,有 2584 名在 ED 留观≤6 小时内抽取了乳酸,18%的患者符合主要结局。qSOFA 评分分别≥1、≥2 和=3的患者比例为 59.2%、22.0%和 5.3%,34.4%的患者乳酸水平≥2,7.9%的患者乳酸水平≥4。qSOFA≥1 或乳酸≥2 的组合具有最高的敏感性,为 94.0%(95%可信区间:91.3-95.9)。

结论

与单独的乳酸和 qSOFA 阈值相比,qSOFA≥1 或乳酸≥2 的组合为危重病的筛查提供了更高的敏感性。

相似文献

1
Combining qSOFA criteria with initial lactate levels: Improved screening of septic patients for critical illness.将 qSOFA 标准与初始乳酸水平相结合:提高对脓毒症患者发生危重症的筛选能力。
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 May;38(5):883-889. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.07.003. Epub 2019 Jul 4.
2
Comparison of qSOFA with current emergency department tools for screening of patients with sepsis for critical illness.qSOFA 与现有急诊科工具在筛查脓毒症患者是否发生重症的比较。
Emerg Med J. 2018 Jun;35(6):350-356. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207383. Epub 2018 May 2.
3
Lactate ≥2 mmol/L plus qSOFA improves utility over qSOFA alone in emergency department patients presenting with suspected sepsis.对于疑似脓毒症的急诊科患者,乳酸水平≥2 mmol/L 加上快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)比单独使用qSOFA更具实用性。
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Dec;29(6):626-634. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12894.
4
qSOFA Has Poor Sensitivity for Prehospital Identification of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock.qSOFA对院前严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的识别敏感性较差。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jul-Aug;21(4):489-497. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1274348. Epub 2017 Jan 25.
5
Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with Sepsis.血清乳酸水平、SOFA 评分和 qSOFA 评分对成人脓毒症死亡率的预后准确性。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019 Apr 30;27(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13049-019-0609-3.
6
Low Accuracy of Positive qSOFA Criteria for Predicting 28-Day Mortality in Critically Ill Septic Patients During the Early Period After Emergency Department Presentation.急诊就诊后早期危重症脓毒症患者 qSOFA 标准阳性预测 28 天死亡率的准确性较低。
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):1-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.05.022. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
7
Combining quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with plasma lactate concentration is comparable to standard Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in predicting mortality of patients with and without suspected infection.将快速序贯器官衰竭评估与血浆乳酸浓度相结合,在预测有或无疑似感染患者的死亡率方面,与标准序贯器官衰竭评估评分相当。
J Crit Care. 2017 Apr;38:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.10.005. Epub 2016 Oct 18.
8
Prognostic Accuracy of VqSOFA for Predicting 28-day Mortality in Patients with Suspected Sepsis in the Emergency Department.VqSOFA 在急诊科疑似脓毒症患者中预测 28 天死亡率的预后准确性。
Shock. 2021 Sep 1;56(3):368-373. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001754.
9
The Combined SIRS + qSOFA (qSIRS) Score is More Accurate Than qSOFA Alone in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Surgical Sepsis in an LMIC Emergency Department.联合 SIRS + qSOFA(qSIRS)评分比单独 qSOFA 更能准确预测中低收入国家急诊外科脓毒症患者的死亡率。
World J Surg. 2020 Jan;44(1):21-29. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05181-x.
10
Addition of lactic acid levels improves the accuracy of quick sequential organ failure assessment in predicting mortality in surgical patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a retrospective study.乳酸水平的加入提高了快速序贯器官衰竭评估在预测合并腹腔内感染的外科患者死亡率方面的准确性:一项回顾性研究。
World J Emerg Surg. 2018 Mar 13;13:14. doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0173-6. eCollection 2018.

引用本文的文献

1
Lactate-enhanced-qSOFA (LqSOFA) score as a predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis.乳酸增强型快速序贯器官衰竭评估(LqSOFA)评分作为脓毒症患者院内死亡率的预测指标:系统评价与荟萃分析
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025 Jan 24;51(1):33. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02757-8.
2
Prehospital lactate analysis in suspected sepsis improves detection of patients with increased mortality risk: an observational study.疑似脓毒症患者的院前乳酸分析可改善对死亡风险增加患者的检测:一项观察性研究。
Crit Care. 2025 Jan 21;29(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05225-2.
3
Prehospital qSOFA, mSOFA, and NEWS2 performance for sepsis prediction: A prospective, multi-center, cohort study.
院前qSOFA、mSOFA和NEWS2对脓毒症预测的性能:一项前瞻性、多中心队列研究。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Apr 18;10:1149736. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1149736. eCollection 2023.
4
Blood Lactate Level and the Predictor of Death in Non-shock Septic Patients.非休克型脓毒症患者的血乳酸水平与死亡预测因素
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2023 Feb;27(2):93-100. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24404.
5
Does lactate enhance the prognostic accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for adult patients with sepsis? A systematic review.乳酸是否能提高脓毒症成人患者快速序贯器官衰竭评估的预后准确性?系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 21;12(10):e060455. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060455.
6
A comparison of qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS in predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis: A meta-analysis.qSOFA、SIRS 和 NEWS 在预测疑似脓毒症患者死亡率准确性方面的比较:一项荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 15;17(4):e0266755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266755. eCollection 2022.
7
Comparison of different versions of the quick sequential organ failure assessment for predicting in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients: A retrospective observational study.不同版本快速序贯器官功能衰竭评估对预测脓毒症患者院内死亡率的比较:一项回顾性观察研究。
World J Emerg Med. 2022;13(2):114-119. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.027.
8
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.
9
The sensitivity of qSOFA calculated at triage and during emergency department treatment to rapidly identify sepsis patients.qSOFA 在分诊和急诊科治疗时计算的敏感性,以快速识别脓毒症患者。
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 23;10(1):20395. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77438-8.
10
Prognostic Value of Severity Score Change for Septic Shock in the Emergency Room.急诊室中脓毒性休克严重程度评分变化的预后价值
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Sep 24;10(10):743. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10100743.