Li Wen, Zhao Zhiling, Zhou Qingtao, Ge Qinggang
Department of Intensive Critical Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China. Corresponding author: Ge Qinggang, Email:
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2024 Mar;36(3):249-255. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20231007-00843.
To systematically review and evaluate the predictive efficacy of various derived indicators of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) in mortality rate of sepsis patients.
Literature on sepsis and SOFA scores were searched in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. The retrieval time will be set to the time of database-building to February, 2023. The main outcome measures included 28-day mortality, 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and long-term mortality. Literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation were carried out independently by 2 researchers. Data were analyzed by Revman 5.3.5, Meta-disc and Stata software. Deek funnel plots were used to assess publication bias in the included studies.
A total of 40 articles including 51 trials were included. Of these, 32 were in English and 8 in Chinese, 17 were in prospective trials and 34 were in retrospective trials, 38 were in initial SOFA-related trials and 9 were in the change of SOFA score (ΔSOFA)-related studies, a total of 59 962 patients were enrolled. (1) The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of initial SOFA and ΔSOFA for predicting outcome in sepsis was 0.773 and 0.787 (Z = 0.115, P > 0.05), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two indexes in predicting the outcome of patients with sepsis. (2) In subgroup analysis, due to limitations in the number of literature articles, the 28-day mortality rate and 30-day mortality rate were merged for discussion. The predictive power of ΔSOFA for 28-day or 30-day mortality was significantly higher than that of initial SOFA (AUC was 0.854, 0.787, Z = 2.603, P ≤ 0.01). (3) There were few studies on ΔSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality and long-term mortality of sepsis patients. The AUC of the initial SOFA for predicting the study endpoints described above was: ICU mortality (0.814) > 28-day or 30-day mortality (0.787) > in-hospital mortality (0.697) > long-term mortality (0.646). (4) Initial SOFA and ΔSOFA in patients with sepsis of non-Han original had good predictive performance and there was no significant difference between them (AUC was 0.766, 0.811, respectively). However, the pooled sensitivity of ΔSOFA was higher (92%). (5) In prospective studies, initial SOFA was better at predicting outcomes in patients with sepsis (AUC was 0.804, pooled sensitivity 64%). The sensitivity of ΔSOFA indicators in predicting the outcome of sepsis patients was significantly higher than the initial SOFA (78% vs. 64%). The funnel plot showed that there was no significant publication bias in the included literature.
ΔSOFA has a relatively high diagnostic efficacy in predicting short-term (28-day or 30-day) mortality in patients with sepsis.
系统评价和评估序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)的各种衍生指标对脓毒症患者死亡率的预测效能。
在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆检索有关脓毒症和SOFA评分的文献。检索时间设定为各数据库建库至2023年2月。主要结局指标包括28天死亡率、30天死亡率、住院死亡率、重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率和长期死亡率。由2名研究人员独立进行文献筛选、数据提取和质量评价。采用Revman 5.3.5、Meta-disc和Stata软件进行数据分析。采用Deek漏斗图评估纳入研究中的发表偏倚。
共纳入40篇文章,包括51项试验。其中,英文32篇,中文8篇;前瞻性试验17篇,回顾性试验34篇;初始SOFA相关试验38篇,SOFA评分变化(ΔSOFA)相关研究9篇,共纳入59 962例患者。(1)初始SOFA和ΔSOFA预测脓毒症结局的受试者工作特征曲线(AUC)下面积分别为0.773和0.787(Z = 0.115,P>0.05)。两项指标在预测脓毒症患者结局方面无显著差异。(2)亚组分析中,由于文献数量有限,将28天死亡率和30天死亡率合并讨论。ΔSOFA对28天或30天死亡率的预测能力显著高于初始SOFA(AUC分别为0.854、0.787,Z = 2.603,P≤0.01)。(3)关于ΔSOFA预测脓毒症患者住院死亡率、ICU死亡率和长期死亡率的研究较少。初始SOFA预测上述研究终点的AUC为:ICU死亡率(0.814)>28天或30天死亡率(0.787)>住院死亡率(0.697)>长期死亡率(0.646)。(4)非汉族脓毒症患者初始SOFA和ΔSOFA均具有良好的预测性能,两者之间无显著差异(AUC分别为0.766、0.811)。然而,ΔSOFA的合并敏感度较高(92%)。(5)在前瞻性研究中,初始SOFA在预测脓毒症患者结局方面表现更好(AUC为0.804,合并敏感度64%)。ΔSOFA指标预测脓毒症患者结局的敏感度显著高于初始SOFA(78%对64%)。漏斗图显示纳入文献无显著发表偏倚。
ΔSOFA在预测脓毒症患者短期(28天或30天)死亡率方面具有较高的诊断效能。