Suppr超能文献

使用 RASS 和 FOUR 比较改良的序贯器官衰竭评估评分。

Comparison of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score using RASS and FOUR.

机构信息

Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública (EBMSP), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.

Universidade do Estado da Bahia (UNEB), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229199. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229199. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

ICU severity scores such as the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) determine neurologic dysfunction based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, a tool that may be limited in a critically ill population. It remains unknown whether alternative methods to assess for neurologic dysfunction, such as FOUR and RASS, are superior. This study aimed to determine the predictive performance of a modified SOFA tool in a large Brazilian ICU cohort.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort single center study.

SETTING

Mixed surgical and medical ICU in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil between August 2015 and December 2018.

PATIENTS

All acutely ill ICU admissions, other than postoperative patients or those with insufficient data, were eligible for study inclusion.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

2147 patients were admitted to the ICU, of which 999 meeting inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis with a median age of 72 years (IQR 58-83) and a female predominance 545 (54%). The SOFA score using GCS, RASS and FOUR for the neurologic component performed marginally in the ability to predict general ICU mortality (SOFAGCS AUC 0.74 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.71 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.67), with SOFAFOUR performing significantly lower compared to either SOFARASS and SOFAGCS (p<0.04, p<0.004 respectively). All three scores demonstrated decreased discriminate function in the mechanically ventilated population (SOFAGCS AUC 0.70 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.70 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.55), though SOFAFOUR remained significantly worse when compared to SOFAGCS or SOFARASS (p = 0.034, p = 0.014, respectively).. Furthermore, performance was poor in a subset of patients with sepsis (n = 145) at time of admission (SOFAGCS AUC 0.66 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.55 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.56).

CONCLUSION

Modification of the neurologic component in the SOFA score does not appear to improve mortality prediction in the ICU.

摘要

目的

重症监护病房(ICU)严重程度评分,如序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA),基于格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)来确定神经功能障碍,而该量表在危重病患者中可能存在局限性。目前尚不清楚替代评估神经功能障碍的方法,如 FOUR 和 RASS 是否更具优势。本研究旨在确定一种改良 SOFA 工具在巴西大型 ICU 队列中的预测性能。

设计

前瞻性队列单中心研究。

地点

巴西巴伊亚萨尔瓦多的混合外科和内科 ICU,研究时间为 2015 年 8 月至 2018 年 12 月。

患者

除术后患者或数据不足的患者外,所有急性入住 ICU 的患者均符合研究纳入标准。

测量和主要结果

共有 2147 名患者入住 ICU,其中符合纳入标准的 999 名患者纳入最终分析,中位年龄为 72 岁(IQR 58-83),女性占多数 545 名(54%)。SOFA 评分使用 GCS、RASS 和 FOUR 评估神经功能组件,对一般 ICU 死亡率的预测能力仅为中等(SOFAGCS AUC 0.74 与 SOFARASS AUC 0.71 和 SOFAFOUR AUC 0.67),与 SOFARASS 和 SOFAGCS 相比,SOFAFOUR 明显更低(p<0.04,p<0.004)。在机械通气患者中,所有三种评分的鉴别功能均降低(SOFAGCS AUC 0.70 与 SOFARASS AUC 0.70 和 SOFAFOUR AUC 0.55),但与 SOFAGCS 或 SOFARASS 相比,SOFAFOUR 仍显著更差(p=0.034,p=0.014)。此外,在入院时患有败血症的患者亚组(n=145)中,SOFA 评分的表现也很差(SOFAGCS AUC 0.66 与 SOFARASS AUC 0.55 和 SOFAFOUR AUC 0.56)。

结论

SOFA 评分中神经功能组件的修改似乎并不能提高 ICU 死亡率的预测能力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/799e/7034824/80a63bc4394b/pone.0229199.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验