Chlabicz Małgorzata, Łaguna Wojciech, Kazimierczyk Remigiusz, Kazimierczyk Ewelina, Łopatowska Paulina, Gil Monika, Sobkowicz Bożena, Kamiński Karol A, Tycińska Agnieszka
Department of Population Medicine and Lifestyle Diseases Prevention, Medical University of Białystok, Białystok, Poland.
Department of Invasive Cardiology, Internal Medicine with Cardiac Intensive Care Unit and Laboratory of Hemodynamics, Medical University of Białystok, Białystok, Poland.
ESC Heart Fail. 2024 Dec;11(6):3584-3597. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.15020. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
The aim of this study was to determine the value of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and CardShock scoring systems in predicting the risk of in-hospital, 30 day and 3 year mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).
This was a single-centre observational study conducted between May 2016 and December 2017. Data from consecutive patients with CS admitted to the intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU) were included in the analysis.
The study group comprised 63 patients with CS {median age 71.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59-82]; 42 men}: 32 patients with ischaemic and 31 with non-ischaemic aetiology. The median APACHE II, SOFA and CardShock scores were 13 (IQR, 9.9-19.0) points, 8.0 (IQR, 6.0-10.0) points and 3.0 (IQR, 2.0-5.0) points, respectively. The in-hospital, 30 day and 3 year mortality rates were 39.7%, 41.3% and 77.8%, respectively. APACHE II and SOFA scores were significantly higher in the group of patients who died at 30 days (P = 0.043 and P = 0.045, respectively). The CardShock score was higher in patients with CS who died in hospital (P = 0.007) and within 30 days (P = 0.004). No score was statistically significant for 3 year mortality. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis showed that the CardShock score had the highest value in predicting in-hospital and 30 day mortality relative to APACHE II and SOFA, with a cut-off score of 5 points [AUC: 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.81; P = 0.001] and 4 points (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60-0.82; P < 0.001), respectively. The Bayesian Weibull model demonstrated the utility of all scales in estimating short-term risk in patients with CS, with the impact of APACHE II and SOFA on patient life expectancy decreasing to a non-significant level at approximately 32 days and CardShock at 33 days. The forest plots derived from the Bayesian logistic regression analysis show significant estimated coefficients with 94% highest density interval (HDI) for in-hospital and 30 day mortality. The use of invasive or non-invasive ventilation, a higher heart rate and a less negative fluid balance showed an unfavourable prognosis. Survival was associated with being in the pre-CS class, with a higher glomerular filtration rate and a higher platelet count.
APACHE II and SOFA could be used for the risk stratification of patients with CS admitted to the ICCU. CardShock proved to be a more appropriate tool for assessing short-term prognosis in patients with CS of all aetiologies, suggesting that there is potential for its promotion for use in daily clinical practice.
本研究旨在确定急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)和心脏休克评分系统在预测心源性休克(CS)患者院内、30天和3年死亡率风险中的价值。
这是一项于2016年5月至2017年12月进行的单中心观察性研究。分析纳入了重症心脏监护病房(ICCU)收治的连续性CS患者的数据。
研究组包括63例CS患者{中位年龄71.0岁[四分位间距(IQR),59 - 82岁];42例男性}:32例缺血性病因患者和31例非缺血性病因患者。APACHE II、SOFA和心脏休克评分的中位数分别为13分(IQR,9.9 - 19.0)、8.0分(IQR,6.0 - 10.0)和3.0分(IQR,2.0 - 5.0)。院内、30天和3年死亡率分别为39.7%、41.3%和77.8%。30天内死亡患者组的APACHE II和SOFA评分显著更高(分别为P = 0.043和P = 0.045)。院内死亡(P = 0.007)和30天内死亡(P = 0.004)的CS患者心脏休克评分更高。对于3年死亡率,没有评分具有统计学意义。曲线下面积(AUC)分析表明,相对于APACHE II和SOFA,心脏休克评分在预测院内和30天死亡率方面具有最高价值,其截断值分别为5分[AUC:0.70;95%置信区间(CI):0.59 - 0.81;P = 0.001]和4分(AUC:0.71;95% CI:0.60 - 0.82;P < 0.001)。贝叶斯威布尔模型证明了所有量表在估计CS患者短期风险中的效用,APACHE II和SOFA对患者预期寿命的影响在约32天时降至无显著水平,心脏休克评分在33天时降至无显著水平。贝叶斯逻辑回归分析得出的森林图显示了院内和30天死亡率的显著估计系数及94%最高密度区间(HDI)。使用有创或无创通气、较高的心率和较少的负液体平衡显示预后不良。存活与处于CS前期、较高的肾小球滤过率和较高的血小板计数相关。
APACHE II和SOFA可用于ICCU收治的CS患者风险分层。心脏休克评分被证明是评估所有病因CS患者短期预后的更合适工具,表明其在日常临床实践中有推广应用的潜力。