Division of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo National Hospital, Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Division of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo National Hospital, Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.
Emerg Med J. 2020 Jun;37(6):363-369. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2018-208361. Epub 2020 Apr 21.
Routine use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to prognosticate patients with sepsis is challenged by the requirement to perform numerous laboratory tests. The prognostic accuracy of the quick SOFA (qSOFA) without or with lactate criteria has not been prospectively investigated in low and middle income countries. We assessed the performance of simplified prognosis criteria using qSOFA-lactate criteria in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources, in comparison with SOFA prognosis criteria and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) screening criteria.
This prospective cohort study was conducted between March and December 2017 in adult patients with suspected bacterial infection visiting the emergency department of the Indonesian National Referral Hospital. Variables from sepsis prognosis and screening criteria and venous lactate concentration at enrolment were recorded. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. Prognostic accuracy was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each criterion in the prediction of in-hospital mortality.
Of 3026 patients screened, 1213 met the inclusion criteria. The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate criteria was 0.74 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.77). The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate was not statistically significantly different to the SOFA score (AUROC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78; p=0.462). The qSOFA-lactate was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI0.67 to 0.74; p=0.006) and SIRS criteria (0.57, 95% CI0.54 to 0.60; p<0.001).
The prognostic accuracy of the qSOFA-lactate criteria is as good as the SOFA score in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources. The performance of the qSOFA criteria is significantly lower than the qSOFA-lactate criteria and SOFA score.This abstract has been translated and adapted from the original English-language content. Translated content is provided on an "as is" basis. Translation accuracy or reliability is not guaranteed or implied. BMJ is not responsible for any errors and omissions arising from translation to the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ shall not incur any liability, including without limitation, liability for damages, arising from the translated text.
使用序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分来预测脓毒症患者的预后受到需要进行多项实验室检查的限制。快速 SOFA(qSOFA)评分不使用或使用乳酸标准的预后准确性尚未在中低收入国家进行前瞻性研究。我们评估了简化的预后标准,包括 qSOFA-乳酸标准,在资源有限的医院急诊科的表现,并与 SOFA 预后标准和全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)筛查标准进行比较。
这是一项前瞻性队列研究,于 2017 年 3 月至 12 月在印度尼西亚国家转诊医院急诊科就诊的疑似细菌性感染的成年患者中进行。记录了脓毒症预后和筛查标准的变量以及入院时的静脉乳酸浓度。患者随访至出院或死亡。使用每个标准在预测院内死亡率方面的受试者工作特征曲线(AUROC)下面积来衡量预后准确性。
在筛查的 3026 名患者中,有 1213 名符合纳入标准。qSOFA-乳酸标准的 AUROC 为 0.74(95%CI 0.71 至 0.77)。qSOFA-乳酸标准的 AUROC 与 SOFA 评分无统计学差异(AUROC 0.75,95%CI 0.72 至 0.78;p=0.462)。qSOFA-乳酸标准显著高于 qSOFA(AUROC 0.70,95%CI0.67 至 0.74;p=0.006)和 SIRS 标准(0.57,95%CI0.54 至 0.60;p<0.001)。
qSOFA-乳酸标准在资源有限的医院急诊科的预后准确性与 SOFA 评分相当。qSOFA 标准的性能明显低于 qSOFA-乳酸标准和 SOFA 评分。
请注意,由于语言习惯和文化背景的差异,翻译后的内容可能与原文存在差异。在使用译文时,请结合原文进行理解和评估。