• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

从普通病房选择患者转入重症监护病房:预后评估工具的作用。

Selecting patients for ICU up-grade from general wards: role of prognostic tools.

作者信息

Amarilla Victor Galvani Vianna, Miamoto Isabel Mieko, Dyba Daiane, Silva-Jr João Manoel, Gomes Brenno Cardoso

机构信息

Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná Hospital Complex, Rua Padre Camargo, 280, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 4. doi: 10.1007/s11739-025-03998-0.

DOI:10.1007/s11739-025-03998-0
PMID:40468142
Abstract

The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) can be difficult, especially when it is unclear which patients will benefit the most. Therefore, identifying the determinants of complications can aid in patient therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of patients who were admitted late to the ICU and identify the main factors that contribute to their admission. This case‒control study was conducted in a tertiary hospital and included 4 years of follow-up (using medical records). The study included patients who were at risk for deterioration and admitted to clinical wards. The main measure, whether ICU admission was needed or not, was compared among the patients. We included 170 patients aged 60.6 ± 13.6 years. The multivariate analysis revealed that the qSOFA and CCI values were independent factors in determining whether a patient required ICU admission (OR = 8.25, CI 95% = 4.4-15.3 and OR = 1.37, CI 95% = 1.03-1.82, respectively); the ROC value was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). The Cox regression model used to assess 90-day survival revealed that only the qSOFA value was strongly associated with shorter survival (qSOFA = 1, HR = 9.42, P = 0.03; qSOFA = 2, HR = 17.7, P = 0.005; and qSOFA = 3, HR = 73.7, P < 0.001). Although selecting high-risk patients for ICU admission is a difficult task, the qSOFA score appears to be a useful tool for differentiating patients.

摘要

决定将患者收入重症监护病房(ICU)可能很困难,尤其是在不清楚哪些患者将受益最大时。因此,识别并发症的决定因素有助于患者治疗。本研究的目的是评估ICU延迟收治患者的特征,并确定导致其收治的主要因素。这项病例对照研究在一家三级医院进行,包括4年的随访(使用病历)。该研究纳入了有病情恶化风险并入住临床病房的患者。比较了患者中是否需要入住ICU这一主要指标。我们纳入了170名年龄为60.6±13.6岁的患者。多变量分析显示,qSOFA和CCI值是决定患者是否需要入住ICU的独立因素(OR分别为8.25,95%CI为4.4 - 15.3;OR为1.37,95%CI为1.03 - 1.82);ROC值为0.89(95%CI为0.83 - 0.93)。用于评估90天生存率的Cox回归模型显示,只有qSOFA值与较短生存期密切相关(qSOFA = 1,HR = 9.42,P =  0.03;qSOFA = 2,HR = 17.7,P = 0.005;qSOFA = 3,HR = 73.7,P < 0.001)。尽管选择高危患者入住ICU是一项艰巨的任务,但qSOFA评分似乎是区分患者的有用工具。

相似文献

1
Selecting patients for ICU up-grade from general wards: role of prognostic tools.从普通病房选择患者转入重症监护病房:预后评估工具的作用。
Intern Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 4. doi: 10.1007/s11739-025-03998-0.
2
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit.qSOFA与SIRS用于预测非重症监护病房疑似脓毒症患者不良结局的比较。
Crit Care. 2017 Mar 26;21(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5.
3
Prognostic Accuracy of the SOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and qSOFA Score for In-Hospital Mortality Among Adults With Suspected Infection Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.SOFA 评分、SIRS 标准和 qSOFA 评分对 ICU 收治的疑似感染成人院内死亡率的预后准确性。
JAMA. 2017 Jan 17;317(3):290-300. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20328.
4
Prognostic value of the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score among critically ill medical and surgical patients with suspected infection in a resource-limited setting.资源有限环境下疑似感染的危重症内科和外科患者中快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分的预后价值
Afr J Thorac Crit Care Med. 2021 Dec 31;27(4). doi: 10.7196/AJTCCM.2021.v27i4.158. eCollection 2021.
5
Low sensitivity of qSOFA, SIRS criteria and sepsis definition to identify infected patients at risk of complication in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department triage.qSOFA、SIRS 标准和脓毒症定义对识别院前环境和急诊科分诊中感染风险患者的并发症的敏感性较低。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 3;25(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0449-y.
6
Use of CRB-65 and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment to predict site of care and mortality in pneumonia patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study.应用CRB-65和快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估预测急诊科肺炎患者的治疗地点和死亡率:一项回顾性研究
Crit Care. 2016 Jun 1;20(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1351-0.
7
Does qSOFA score predict ICU admission and outcomes in patients with obstructed infected ureteral stones?qSOFA 评分能否预测梗阻合并感染性输尿管结石患者的 ICU 收治和结局?
Can J Urol. 2021 Oct;28(5):10841-10847.
8
Evaluation of qSOFA as a Predictor of Mortality Among ICU Patients With Positive Clinical Cultures-A Retrospective Cohort Study.qSOFA 对 ICU 阳性临床培养患者死亡率预测的评估——一项回顾性队列研究。
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Nov;35(11):1278-1284. doi: 10.1177/0885066619856852. Epub 2019 Jun 17.
9
[Comparison of four early warning scores in predicting the prognosis of critically ill patients in secondary hospitals].[四种早期预警评分对二级医院重症患者预后预测的比较]
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2023 Oct;35(10):1093-1098. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20230614-00441.
10
Usefulness of qSOFA and ECOG Scores for Predicting Hospital Mortality in Postsurgical Cancer Patients without Infection.qSOFA和ECOG评分对预测无感染的外科癌症患者医院死亡率的有效性。
Int J Chronic Dis. 2019 May 2;2019:9418971. doi: 10.1155/2019/9418971. eCollection 2019.

本文引用的文献

1
Effects of Hypertension Alone and in Comorbidity with Diabetes on Death within 30 Days among Inpatients with COVID-19 Infection.高血压单独及合并糖尿病对 COVID-19 感染住院患者 30 天内死亡的影响。
J Res Health Sci. 2022 Dec;22(4):e00565. doi: 10.34172/jrhs.2022.100.
2
Performance of qSOFA Score as a Screening Tool for Sepsis in the Emergency Department.qSOFA评分在急诊科作为脓毒症筛查工具的性能
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2023 Jan-Mar;16(1):3-7. doi: 10.4103/jets.jets_99_22. Epub 2023 Mar 24.
3
Perceptions of Critical Care Shortages, Resource Use, and Provider Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of 1,985 Health Care Providers in Brazil.
《COVID-19 大流行期间对重症监护短缺、资源利用和医务人员健康状况的看法:对巴西 1985 名卫生保健提供者的调查》。
Chest. 2022 Jun;161(6):1526-1542. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.01.057. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
4
Charlson Comorbidity Index: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties.Charlson 共病指数:临床计量特性的批判性评价。
Psychother Psychosom. 2022;91(1):8-35. doi: 10.1159/000521288. Epub 2022 Jan 6.
5
Who is going to turn on the ventilators?谁来打开呼吸机?
Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2021 Oct 25;19:eAO6211. doi: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2021AO6211. eCollection 2021.
6
qSOFA as a new community-acquired pneumonia severity score in the emergency setting.qSOFA 作为一种新的急诊社区获得性肺炎严重程度评分。
Emerg Med J. 2021 Dec;38(12):906-912. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208789. Epub 2020 Oct 6.
7
Accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score to Predict Sepsis Mortality in 121 Studies Including 1,716,017 Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.在纳入1,716,017例个体的121项研究中,快速序贯器官功能衰竭评估评分预测脓毒症死亡率的准确性:一项系统评价和Meta分析
Crit Care Explor. 2019 Sep 17;1(9):e0043. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000043. eCollection 2019 Sep.
8
Type 2 Diabetes and its Impact on the Immune System.2型糖尿病及其对免疫系统的影响。
Curr Diabetes Rev. 2020;16(5):442-449. doi: 10.2174/1573399815666191024085838.
9
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit.qSOFA与SIRS用于预测非重症监护病房疑似脓毒症患者不良结局的比较。
Crit Care. 2017 Mar 26;21(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5.
10
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).《脓毒症及脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义(脓毒症-3)》
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.