Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.
Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Mengücek Gazi Training and Research Hospital, Erzincan, Turkey.
Pathog Glob Health. 2022 May;116(3):193-200. doi: 10.1080/20477724.2021.2012921. Epub 2021 Dec 6.
We aimed to decide which scoring system is the best for the evaluation of the course of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) by comparing scoring systems such as qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) and SGS (Severity Grading System) in centers where patients with CCHF were monitored. The study was conducted with patients diagnosed with CCHF in five different centers where the disease was encountered most commonly. Patients having proven PCR and/or IgM positivity for CCHF were included in the study. The scores of the scoring systems on admission, at the 72 hour and at the 120 hour were calculated and evaluated. The data of 388 patients were obtained from five centers and evaluated. SGS, SOFA and APACHE II were the best scoring systems in predicting mortality on admission. All scoring systems were significant in predicting mortality at the 72 and 120 hours. On admission, there was a correlation between the qSOFA, SOFA and APACHE II scores and the SGS scores in the group of survivors. All scoring systems had a positive correlation in the same direction. The correlation coefficients were strong for qSOFA and SOFA, but poor for APACHE II. A one-unit rise in SGS increased the probability of death by 12.818 times. qSOFA did not provide significant results in predicting mortality on admission. SGS, SOFA and APACHE II performed best at admission and at the 72 and 120 hours.
我们旨在通过比较评分系统，如 qSOFA（快速序贯器官衰竭评估）、SOFA（序贯器官衰竭评估）、APACHE II（急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II）和 SGS（严重程度分级系统），来确定哪种评分系统最适合评估克里米亚-刚果出血热（CCHF）的病程，这些评分系统在监测 CCHF 患者的中心使用。该研究在五个最常见出现该疾病的不同中心进行，对确诊为 CCHF 的患者进行。将已证明具有 CCHF 的 PCR 和/或 IgM 阳性的患者纳入研究。计算并评估了入院时、72 小时和 120 小时的评分系统评分。从五个中心获得了 388 名患者的数据并进行了评估。SGS、SOFA 和 APACHE II 是入院时预测死亡率的最佳评分系统。所有评分系统在预测 72 小时和 120 小时的死亡率方面均具有统计学意义。入院时，存活组的 qSOFA、SOFA 和 APACHE II 评分与 SGS 评分之间存在相关性。所有评分系统的相关性均为正相关。qSOFA 和 SOFA 的相关系数较强，而 APACHE II 的相关系数较弱。SGS 评分增加一个单位，死亡的概率增加 12.818 倍。qSOFA 在入院时预测死亡率方面没有显著结果。SGS、SOFA 和 APACHE II 在入院时以及 72 小时和 120 小时表现最佳。
