• 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

预测游戏的利弊:重症监护室死亡率的永无止境的争论。

The Pros and Cons of the Prediction Game: The Never-ending Debate of Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 14 Medykow Street, 40752 Katowice, Poland.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13;16(18):3394. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183394.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph16183394
PMID:31540201
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6766032/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scales are scoring systems used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. We aimed to investigate their usefulness in predicting short- and long-term prognosis in the local ICU.

METHODS

This single-center observational study covered 905 patients admitted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017 to a tertiary mixed ICU. SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scores were calculated based on the worst values from the first 24 h post-admission. Patients were divided into surgical (SP) and nonsurgical (NSP) subjects. Unadjusted ICU and post-ICU discharge mortality rates were considered the outcomes.

RESULTS

Baseline SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scores were 41.1 ± 20.34, 14.07 ± 8.73, and 6.33 ± 4.12 points, respectively. All scores were significantly lower among SP compared to NSP ( < 0.05). ICU mortality reached 35.4% and was significantly lower for SP (25.3%) than NSP (57.9%) ( < 0.001). The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.826, 0.836, and 0.788 for SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA scales, respectively, for predicting ICU prognosis, and 0.708, 0.709, and 0.661 for SAPS II, APACHE II, and SOFA, respectively, for post-ICU prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although APACHE II and SAPS II are good predictors of ICU mortality, they failed to predict survival after discharge. Surgical patients had a better prognosis than medical ICU patients.

摘要

背景

简化急性生理学评分(SAPS) II、急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE) II 和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)量表是全球重症监护病房(ICU)中使用的评分系统。我们旨在研究它们在预测当地 ICU 短期和长期预后方面的有用性。

方法

这项单中心观察性研究涵盖了 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 12 月 31 日期间入住一家三级混合 ICU 的 905 名患者。SAPS II、APACHE II 和 SOFA 评分根据入院后 24 小时内的最差值计算。患者分为外科(SP)和非外科(NSP)患者。未调整的 ICU 和 ICU 后出院死亡率被认为是结局。

结果

基线 SAPS II、APACHE II 和 SOFA 评分分别为 41.1 ± 20.34、14.07 ± 8.73 和 6.33 ± 4.12 分。与 NSP 相比,SP 的所有评分均显著较低(<0.05)。ICU 死亡率达到 35.4%,SP(25.3%)显著低于 NSP(57.9%)(<0.001)。SAPS II、APACHE II 和 SOFA 量表预测 ICU 预后的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积分别为 0.826、0.836 和 0.788,预测 ICU 后预后的 AUC 分别为 0.708、0.709 和 0.661。

结论

尽管 APACHE II 和 SAPS II 是 ICU 死亡率的良好预测指标,但它们未能预测出院后的生存率。外科患者的预后优于内科 ICU 患者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/feae708cb090/ijerph-16-03394-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/83ac15a1abff/ijerph-16-03394-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/4535bb1ae574/ijerph-16-03394-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/4d75712251cf/ijerph-16-03394-g003a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/feae708cb090/ijerph-16-03394-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/83ac15a1abff/ijerph-16-03394-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/4535bb1ae574/ijerph-16-03394-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/4d75712251cf/ijerph-16-03394-g003a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ba0/6766032/feae708cb090/ijerph-16-03394-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
The Pros and Cons of the Prediction Game: The Never-ending Debate of Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit.预测游戏的利弊:重症监护室死亡率的永无止境的争论。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13;16(18):3394. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183394.
2
Effectiveness of the sequential organ failure assessment, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, and simplified acute physiology score II prognostic scoring systems in paraquat-poisoned patients in the intensive care unit.序贯器官衰竭评估、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II及简化急性生理学评分系统II在重症监护病房百草枯中毒患者中的预后评分系统的有效性。
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017 May;36(5):431-437. doi: 10.1177/0960327116657602. Epub 2016 Jul 6.
3
Validation of APACHE II and SAPS II scales at the intensive care unit along with assessment of SOFA scale at the admission as an isolated risk of death predictor.在重症监护病房对急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)和简化急性生理学评分系统II(SAPS II)进行验证,并在入院时评估序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)量表作为独立的死亡风险预测指标。
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2019;51(2):107-111. doi: 10.5114/ait.2019.86275.
4
Performance assessment of the SOFA, APACHE II scoring system, and SAPS II in intensive care unit organophosphate poisoned patients.在重症监护病房有机磷中毒患者中,SOFA、APACHE II 评分系统和 SAPS II 的性能评估。
J Korean Med Sci. 2013 Dec;28(12):1822-6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.12.1822. Epub 2013 Nov 26.
5
Comparison of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoring system, and Trauma and Injury Severity Score method for predicting the outcomes of intensive care unit trauma patients.比较序贯器官衰竭评估、急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统 II 和创伤和损伤严重程度评分方法在预测 ICU 创伤患者结局中的应用。
Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;30(5):749-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2011.05.022. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
6
Prognostic scores in a gastroenterology intensive care unit.胃肠病重症监护病房的预后评分。
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2010 Oct;102(10):596-601. doi: 10.4321/s1130-01082010001000006.
7
Predictive performance of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment for mortality and ICU admission in patients with infection at the ED.急诊科感染患者中快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估对死亡率和入住重症监护病房的预测性能。
Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;34(9):1788-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.06.015. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
8
[Predictive values of different critical scoring systems for survival rate after discharge in critically ill patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].[不同危急评分系统对体外膜肺氧合支持的危重症患者出院后生存率的预测价值]
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018 May;30(5):456-460. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2018.05.012.
9
A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, multinational study. The European/North American Severity Study Group.重症监护病房患者疾病严重程度评分系统的比较:一项多中心、跨国研究的结果。欧洲/北美严重程度研究组。
Crit Care Med. 1995 Aug;23(8):1327-35. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199508000-00005.
10
The outcome of acute renal failure in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE: model application, sensitivity, and predictability.根据RIFLE标准评估重症监护病房中急性肾衰竭的预后:模型应用、敏感性及可预测性
Am J Kidney Dis. 2005 Dec;46(6):1038-48. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.033.

引用本文的文献

1
The Role of Programmed Cell Death 1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) Axis in Sepsis-Induced Apoptosis.程序性细胞死亡蛋白 1/程序性死亡配体 1(PD-1/PD-L1)轴在脓毒症诱导的细胞凋亡中的作用。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Jul 19;60(7):1174. doi: 10.3390/medicina60071174.
2
Prediction of mortality in secondary peritonitis: a prospective study comparing p-POSSUM, Mannheim Peritonitis Index, and Jabalpur Peritonitis Index.继发性腹膜炎死亡率的预测:一项比较p-POSSUM、曼海姆腹膜炎指数和贾巴尔普尔腹膜炎指数的前瞻性研究。
Perioper Med (Lond). 2023 Dec 8;12(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s13741-023-00355-7.
3
Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

本文引用的文献

1
Mortality of patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy.需要肾脏替代治疗的急性肾损伤患者的死亡率。
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018 Mar;27(3):327-333. doi: 10.17219/acem/65066.
2
Comparison of European ICU patients in 2012 (ICON) versus 2002 (SOAP).2012 年欧洲 ICU 患者(ICON)与 2002 年(SOAP)比较。
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Mar;44(3):337-344. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-5043-2. Epub 2018 Feb 15.
3
Predicting Mortality of Patients With Sepsis: A Comparison of APACHE II and APACHE III Scoring Systems.
碳氧血红蛋白是脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者有效的床旁预后评估工具吗?
J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures). 2023 Nov 14;9(4):239-251. doi: 10.2478/jccm-2023-0031. eCollection 2023 Oct.
4
Risk factors for hospital mortality in intensive care unit survivors: a retrospective cohort study.重症监护病房幸存者医院死亡率的危险因素:一项回顾性队列研究。
Acute Crit Care. 2023 Feb;38(1):68-75. doi: 10.4266/acc.2022.01375. Epub 2023 Feb 27.
5
Prediction of hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients from clinical and laboratory data: A machine learning approach.基于临床和实验室数据预测重症监护病房患者的医院死亡率:一种机器学习方法。
World J Crit Care Med. 2022 Sep 9;11(5):317-329. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v11.i5.317.
6
Mortality related to drug-resistant organisms in surgical sepsis-3: an 8-year time trend study using sequential organ failure assessment scores.手术脓毒症中与耐药菌相关的死亡率-3:使用序贯器官衰竭评估评分的 8 年时间趋势研究。
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;40(3):535-540. doi: 10.1007/s10096-020-04037-w. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
7
Haemogram-Derived Indices for Screening and Prognostication in Critically Ill Septic Shock Patients: A Case-Control Study.血细胞分析衍生指标用于危重症感染性休克患者的筛查与预后评估:一项病例对照研究
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Aug 27;10(9):638. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10090638.
8
Mortality Prediction Using SOFA Score in Critically Ill Surgical and Non-Surgical Patients: Which Parameter Is the Most Valuable?使用 SOFA 评分对危重症手术和非手术患者进行死亡率预测:哪个参数最有价值?
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Jun 4;56(6):273. doi: 10.3390/medicina56060273.
预测脓毒症患者的死亡率:急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHE II)与急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅲ(APACHE III)的比较
J Clin Med Res. 2017 Nov;9(11):907-910. doi: 10.14740/jocmr3083w. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
4
Mortality rate in Polish intensive care units is lower than predicted according to the APACHE II scoring system.波兰重症监护病房的死亡率低于根据急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)预测的死亡率。
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43(11):1745-1746. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4883-0. Epub 2017 Jul 21.
5
Mortality rate is higher in Polish intensive care units than in other European countries.波兰重症监护病房的死亡率高于其他欧洲国家。
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;43(9):1430-1432. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4804-2. Epub 2017 May 8.
6
Comparison of APACHE II and SAPS II Scoring Systems in Prediction of Critically Ill Patients' Outcome.急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)和简化急性生理学评分系统II(SAPS II)在预测危重症患者预后方面的比较
Emerg (Tehran). 2017;5(1):e4. Epub 2017 Jan 8.
7
Does the APACHE II score predict performance of activities of daily living in patients discharged from a weaning center?急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)能否预测从撤机中心出院患者的日常生活活动能力?
Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol. 2016 Dec;13(4):353-358. doi: 10.5114/kitp.2016.64880. Epub 2016 Dec 30.
8
Accuracy of SOFA score in prediction of 30-day outcome of critically ill patients.序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分对危重症患者30天预后的预测准确性。
Turk J Emerg Med. 2016 Nov 19;16(4):146-150. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2016.09.005. eCollection 2016 Dec.
9
Better prognostic marker in ICU - APACHE II, SOFA or SAP II!重症监护病房中更好的预后标志物——急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)还是简化急性生理学评分II(SAP II)!
Pak J Med Sci. 2016 Sep-Oct;32(5):1146-1151. doi: 10.12669/pjms.325.10080.
10
Prospective assessment of standardized mortality ratio (SMR) as a measure of quality of care in intensive care unit--a single-centre study.标准化死亡比(SMR)作为重症监护病房护理质量衡量指标的前瞻性评估——一项单中心研究
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47(4):328-32. doi: 10.5603/AIT.2015.0044.