Suppr超能文献

用于预测急诊科脓毒症患者死亡率的改良序贯器官衰竭评估评分

Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for predicting mortality in emergency department patients with sepsis.

作者信息

Vosseteig Anna, Huang Tiffany, Jones Peter

机构信息

Adult Emergency Department, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.

Emergency Department, Tauranga Hospital, Tauranga, New Zealand.

出版信息

Emerg Med Australas. 2023 Jun;35(3):504-509. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.14180. Epub 2023 Feb 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Several scoring systems have been proposed for EDs to identify patients at increased risk of mortality from sepsis. The modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) score, proposed in 2019, demonstrated a high negative predictive value. We aimed to validate mSOFA and compare its accuracy for predicting 30-day mortality to the simple bedside score, quick SOFA (qSOFA).

METHODS

Over 1 month in 2018, consecutive patients with suspected sepsis were prospectively identified. A retrospective chart review was conducted to calculate both the mSOFA and qSOFA scores for these patients. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were 252 patients with suspected sepsis identified over the study period. Thirty-day mortality was 13/39 (33.3%) for those with a positive mSOFA and 15/211 (7.1%) for those with a negative mSOFA score. Sensitivity was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.5-66.1%), specificity 88.3% (95% CI 83.3-92.2%), positive likelihood ratio 3.96 (95% CI 2.32-6.78), negative likelihood ratio 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.86). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.85). qSOFA sensitivity was 39.3% (95% CI 21.5-59.4%), specificity 91.9% (95% CI 87.5-95.1%), positive likelihood ratio 4.85 (95% CI 2.56-9.18) and negative likelihood ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.89). The AUC for qSOFA was 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88). The difference in the AUC was -0.07 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.05), P = 0.25.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, neither mSOFA nor qSOFA was adequately sensitive for predicting 30-day mortality, although both scores were highly specific and their overall accuracy was similar. The added complexity of the mSOFA without a significant increase in discriminative ability makes it unlikely to replace qSOFA in the ED setting.

摘要

目的

已提出多种评分系统用于急诊科识别脓毒症死亡风险增加的患者。2019年提出的改良序贯器官衰竭评估(mSOFA)评分显示出较高的阴性预测价值。我们旨在验证mSOFA,并将其预测30天死亡率的准确性与简单的床旁评分快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)进行比较。

方法

在2018年的1个多月时间里,前瞻性地识别连续的疑似脓毒症患者。进行回顾性病历审查以计算这些患者的mSOFA和qSOFA评分。主要结局是30天死亡率。

结果

在研究期间共识别出252例疑似脓毒症患者。mSOFA阳性患者的30天死亡率为13/39(33.3%),mSOFA评分阴性患者为15/211(7.1%)。敏感性为46.4%(95%置信区间[CI]27.5 - 66.1%),特异性为88.3%(95%CI 83.3 - 92.2%),阳性似然比为3.96(95%CI 2.32 - 6.78),阴性似然比为0.61(95%CI 0.43 - 0.86)。曲线下面积(AUC)为0.74(95%CI 0.64 - 0.85)。qSOFA的敏感性为39.3%(95%CI 21.5 - 59.4%),特异性为91.9%(95%CI 87.5 - 95.1%),阳性似然比为4.85(95%CI 2.56 - 9.18),阴性似然比为0.66(95%CI 0.49 - 0.89)。qSOFA的AUC为0.81(95%CI 0.73 - 0.88)。AUC的差异为 - 0.07(95%CI - 0.18至0.05),P = 0.25。

结论

在本研究中,mSOFA和qSOFA对预测30天死亡率的敏感性均不足,尽管两者评分的特异性都很高且总体准确性相似。mSOFA增加的复杂性并未显著提高鉴别能力,这使得它不太可能在急诊科环境中取代qSOFA。

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