Suppr超能文献

快速 sofa-65 评分作为初始急诊科评估时快速脓毒症筛查工具的性能:一项倾向评分匹配研究。

Performance of a quick sofa-65 score as a rapid sepsis screening tool during initial emergency department assessment: A propensity score matching study.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea.

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2020 Feb;55:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.09.019. Epub 2019 Oct 9.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We sought to elucidate the performance of a Quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment-65 (qSOFA-65) score in recognizing sepsis and to compare the qSOFA-65 score to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and qSOFA scores.

METHODS

We performed a matched case-control study using propensity score matching. The number of patients meeting qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were calculated between the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. We compared the diagnostic performance of the three scoring systems in predicting sepsis.

RESULTS

A total of 2441 patients were included in the study. In propensity matched cohorts, the percentage of patients who met qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were 46.7%, 14.3%, and 55.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity scores for the qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria for sepsis were 0.66 and 0.73, 0.28 and 0.97, and 0.66 and 0.55, respectively. The AUC value of qSOFA-65 positive criteria in predicting sepsis was significantly higher than that of qSOFA and SIRS positive criteria (adjusted AUC 0.688 vs. 0.630 vs. 0.596, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that qSOFA-65 was more likely to identify patients with sepsis on the initial ED visit relative to qSOFA or SIRS. This may have quality improvement implications in predicting sepsis.

摘要

目的

我们旨在阐明快速序贯器官衰竭评估-65 分(qSOFA-65)评分在识别脓毒症方面的表现,并将 qSOFA-65 评分与全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)和 qSOFA 评分进行比较。

方法

我们采用倾向评分匹配进行了一项匹配病例对照研究。计算了脓毒症组和非脓毒症组中符合 qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准的患者人数。我们比较了三种评分系统在预测脓毒症方面的诊断性能。

结果

共有 2441 名患者纳入本研究。在倾向评分匹配队列中,符合 qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准的患者比例分别为 46.7%、14.3%和 55.6%。qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准对脓毒症的敏感性和特异性评分分别为 0.66 和 0.73、0.28 和 0.97、0.66 和 0.55。qSOFA-65 阳性标准预测脓毒症的 AUC 值明显高于 qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准(调整后的 AUC 分别为 0.688、0.630 和 0.596)。

结论

我们发现,与 qSOFA 或 SIRS 相比,qSOFA-65 更有可能在急诊初始就诊时识别出患有脓毒症的患者。这可能对预测脓毒症具有质量改进意义。

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