首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >Validity of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in Assessing Mortality Rate in the Intensive Care Unit With or Without Sepsis
【24h】

Validity of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in Assessing Mortality Rate in the Intensive Care Unit With or Without Sepsis

机译:序贯器官失败评估和快速顺序器官失效评估在评估密集护理单位死亡率的快速顺序器官失效评估

获取原文
       

摘要

Introduction Sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-induced hypotension not improved by adequate fluid resuscitation) are among the most common reasons for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and display high mortality rates. Different scoring systems are used to diagnose and predict the mortality of patients having sepsis. This study aims to validate the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in determining the mortality of both septic and non-septic patients. Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted in May 2018?in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Past 200 patient records, from January 2018 to April 2018, were examined, and 20 records were discarded due to insufficient data. Sufficient observational data were collected, which was used to assess the validity of the SOFA and qSOFA in determining the mortality rate of sepsis. A comparison of the two modalities was made. Results Out of the 200 patients, 180 were enrolled. Data from their entire ICU stay were used to calculate their initial, highest, and mean SOFA and qSOFA. Mean SOFA score up to nine correlated with a mortality rate of up to 79%, while scores 10 and above?predicted a 100% mortality rate. A mean qSOFA score of three predicted a 67% mortality rate. Univariate logistic analysis performed with odds ratio showed that the mean qSOFA score was in comparison more closely able to predict mortality, followed by mean SOFA score (p values 0.01). Conclusions This study concluded that both SOFA and qSOFA scores are good predictors of mortality. However, qSOFA is more closely accurate in predicting mortality than SOFA. But further analysis with larger sample size for a longer duration as well as the application of these scores in the emergency departments and general wards can prove the precision of this study.
机译:引言败血症和脓毒症患者(败血症诱导的低血压未通过充足的流体复苏而改善)是进入重症监护单元(ICU)的最常见原因,并显示出高死亡率。不同的评分系统用于诊断和预测患有败血症的死亡率。本研究旨在验证顺序器官衰竭评估(沙发)和快速顺序器官衰竭评估(QSOFA)的预后准确性在确定脓毒症和非化脓性患者的死亡率。材料和方法这项回顾性队列研究于2018年5月进行?在巴基斯坦卡拉奇的三级护理医院的外科重症监护室(SICU)中。从2018年1月到2018年1月至2018年4月的过去200名患者记录,由于数据不足,20条记录被丢弃。收集了足够的观察数据,用于评估沙发和QSOFA在确定败血症的死亡率方面的有效性。制作了两种方式的比较。结果为200名患者,注册了180名患者。他们整个ICU住宿的数据用于计算他们的初始,最高和平均的沙发和QSOFA。平均九个与死亡率高达9个相关性的沙发评分,而分数10及以上次数?预测了100%的死亡率。平均QSOFA得分为三个预测了67%的死亡率。使用odds比进行的单变量物流分析表明,平均QSOFA评分更紧密地能够预测死亡率,其次是平均沙发评分(P值<0.01)。结论这项研究得出结论,沙发和QSOFA分数都是死亡率的良好预测因子。然而,QSOFA更准确地预测死亡率而不是沙发。但是进一步分析了更大的样本量,持续更长的时间以及在急诊部门和普通病房中的这些分数的应用可以证明这项研究的精确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号