Cirik Mustafa Ozgur, Doganay Guler Eraslan, Doganci Melek, Ozdemir Tarkan, Yildiz Murat, Kahraman Abdullah, Hazer Seray, Tunc Mehtap, Ensarioglu Kerem, Ozanbarci Azra, Mentes Oral
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara Ataturk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Sanatoryum St., Kecioren 06290, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Pulmonology, Ankara Ataturk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Sanatoryum St., Kecioren 06290, Ankara, Turkey.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jun 29;15(13):1660. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15131660.
Prognostic scoring systems are applied in intensive care units (ICUs) to monitor patients' responses to treatment and guide treatment modalities. These scoring systems are also used as predictors in sepsis, where mortality rates are high. This study aims to compare the scores (APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, OASIS) in terms of their role in predicting overall mortality in patients admitted to ICUs with a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock. Among 740 patients admitted to the tertiary intensive care unit within a 2-year period, 165 patients diagnosed with sepsis and septic shock were included in the study. Demographic data, comorbidities, SOFA, SAPSII, OASIS, and APACHE II scores, invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation requirements and durations, ICU admissions, hospital stays, and 28-day mortalities were retrospectively evaluated. All scoring systems were positively correlated with mortality and CCI score. SAPS II and OASIS showed a higher correlation with mortality compared to other scoring systems, correlated with ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, unlike other scoring systems. The AUC values for the APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, and OASIS were 0.803, 0.873, 0.902, and 0.879, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the scores ( > 0.05). Compared to commonly used scoring systems, OASIS is a practical tool and serves as a robust scoring system for assessing mortality in ICU patients diagnosed with sepsis.
预后评分系统应用于重症监护病房(ICU),以监测患者对治疗的反应并指导治疗方式。这些评分系统也被用作脓毒症的预测指标,脓毒症的死亡率很高。本研究旨在比较(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]、简化急性生理学评分系统II [SAPS II]、器官功能障碍评估系统 [OASIS])在预测诊断为脓毒症或脓毒性休克并入住ICU患者的总体死亡率方面的作用。在两年期间入住三级重症监护病房的740例患者中,165例诊断为脓毒症和脓毒性休克的患者被纳入研究。回顾性评估了人口统计学数据、合并症、SOFA、SAPSII、OASIS和APACHE II评分、有创或无创机械通气需求及持续时间、ICU住院时间、住院时间和28天死亡率。所有评分系统均与死亡率和 Charlson 合并症指数(CCI)评分呈正相关。与其他评分系统相比,SAPS II和OASIS与死亡率的相关性更高,与其他评分系统不同,它们与入住ICU和机械通气相关。APACHE II、SOFA、SAPS II和OASIS的曲线下面积(AUC)值分别为0.803、0.873、0.902和0.879。各评分之间未发现统计学显著差异(>0.05)。与常用评分系统相比,OASIS是一种实用工具,是评估诊断为脓毒症的ICU患者死亡率的强大评分系统。