Suppr超能文献

SAPS 3、SOFA、ISS 和新 ISS 对危重症创伤患者院内死亡率预测性能的验证性队列研究。

Predictive Performance for Hospital Mortality of SAPS 3, SOFA, ISS, and New ISS in Critically Ill Trauma Patients: A Validation Cohort Study.

机构信息

Trauma and Acute Care Surgery ICU, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Intensive Care Unit, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

出版信息

J Intensive Care Med. 2024 Jan;39(1):44-51. doi: 10.1177/08850666231188051. Epub 2023 Jul 14.

Abstract

It is not known whether anatomical scores perform better than general critical care scores for trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compare the predictive performance for hospital mortality of general critical care scores (SAPS 3 and SOFA) with anatomical injury-based scores (Injury Severity Score [ISS] and New ISS [NISS]). Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a specialized trauma ICU from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil between May, 2012 and January, 2016. We retrieved data from the ICU database for critical care scores and calculated ISS and NISS from chart data and whole body computed tomography results. We compared the predictive performance for hospital mortality of each model through discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis. The sample comprised 1053 victims of trauma admitted to the ICU, with 84.2% male patients and mean age of 40 (±18) years. Main injury mechanism was blunt trauma (90.7%). Traumatic brain injury was present in 67.8% of patients; 43.3% with severe TBI. At the time of ICU admission, 846 patients (80.3%) were on mechanical ventilation and 644 (64.3%) on vasoactive drugs. Hospital mortality was 23.8% (251). Median SAPS 3 was 41; median maximum SOFA within 24 h of admission, 7; ISS, 29; and NISS, 41. AUROCs (95% CI) were: SAPS 3 = 0.786 (0.756-0.817), SOFA = 0.807 (0.778-0.837), ISS = 0.616 (0.577-0.656), and NISS = 0.689 (0.649-0.729). In pairwise comparisons, SAPS 3 and SOFA did not differ, while both outperformed the anatomical scores ( < .001). Maximum SOFA within 24 h of admission presented the best calibration and net benefit in decision-curve analysis. Trauma-specific anatomical scores have fair performance in critically ill trauma patients and are outperformed by SAPS 3 and SOFA. Illness severity is best characterized by organ dysfunction and physiological variables than anatomical injuries.

摘要

目前尚不清楚解剖评分是否优于针对创伤患者入住重症监护病房(ICU)的一般重症监护评分。我们比较了基于一般重症监护评分(SAPS 3 和 SOFA)与解剖损伤评分(损伤严重程度评分 [ISS] 和新 ISS [NISS])对医院死亡率的预测性能。这是一项在巴西圣保罗的一家三级医院的专门创伤 ICU 接受治疗的患者的回顾性队列研究,研究时间为 2012 年 5 月至 2016 年 1 月。我们从 ICU 数据库中检索了重症监护评分的数据,并从图表数据和全身计算机断层扫描结果计算了 ISS 和 NISS。我们通过判别、校准和决策曲线分析比较了每种模型对医院死亡率的预测性能。该样本包括 1053 名 ICU 入住的创伤患者,其中 84.2%为男性,平均年龄为 40(±18)岁。主要损伤机制为钝性创伤(90.7%)。67.8%的患者存在创伤性脑损伤;43.3%为严重 TBI。入住 ICU 时,846 名患者(80.3%)正在接受机械通气,644 名患者(64.3%)正在使用血管活性药物。医院死亡率为 23.8%(251 人)。SAPS 3 的中位数为 41;入院后 24 小时内最大 SOFA 的中位数为 7;ISS 为 29;NISS 为 41。AUROCs(95%CI)分别为:SAPS 3=0.786(0.756-0.817),SOFA=0.807(0.778-0.837),ISS=0.616(0.577-0.656),NISS=0.689(0.649-0.729)。两两比较时,SAPS 3 和 SOFA 无差异,而两者均优于解剖评分(<0.001)。入院后 24 小时内最大 SOFA 的校准和决策曲线分析中的净收益最佳。创伤特异性解剖评分在重症创伤患者中有较好的表现,优于 SAPS 3 和 SOFA。器官功能障碍和生理变量比解剖损伤更能准确反映疾病严重程度。

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