首页> 外文期刊>Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine >Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study
【24h】

Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

机译:比较MSOFA,QSOFA和QSOFA-65在预测医院急诊部门的非创伤患者状态方面的能力和准确性:一项潜在研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Introduction:This study was proposed to compare the ability and accuracy of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and qSOFA-65 in predicting the status of nontraumatic patients referred to hospital emergency departments (EDs).Materials and methods:This study was a prospective design that performed on the 746 nontraumatic patients referred to the ED. Each patient data was collected using a demographic questionnaire, mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 scales. Related variables of each scale were recorded based on patients' medical records. Then, the outcome of each patient in the ED was followed up and recorded. The severity and specificity of each scale were estimated by the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve at 99% confidence interval (CI).Results:The mean and standard deviation of scores were as follows: mSOFA = 4.40 ± 2.58, qSOFA = 0.50 ± 0.70, and qSOFA-65 = 0.92 ± 0.96. Patients requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) were identified with AUROC curve as follows: mSOFA = 0.882 (99% CI = 0.778-0.865); qSOFA = 0.717 (99% CI = 0.662-0.773); and qSOFA-65 = 0.771 (99% CI = 0.721-0.820), which showed that mSOFA has higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two scales in identifying patients requiring admission to the ICU.Conclusion:All three scales were found to be reliable for identifying nontraumatic patients at risk of death and patients requiring admission to the ICU. However, since the time and data required to complete qSOFA and qSOFA-65 are much less than those of mSOFA, it is recommended that qSOFA and especially qSOFA-65 be used in ED to identify critically ill nontraumatic patients.How to cite this article:Ebrahimian A, Shahcheragh SMT, Fakhr-Movahedi A. Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(11):1045-1050.Copyright ? 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.
机译:介绍:本研究旨在比较修饰的顺序器官失效评估(MSOFA),快速沙发(QSOFA)和QSOFA-65的能力和准确性在预测医院急诊部门(EDS)的非创伤患者状态。材料和方法:本研究是对ED提到的746名非创伤患者进行的前瞻性设计。使用人口调查问卷,MSOFA,QSOFA和QSOFA-65秤收集每个患者数据。根据患者的病历记录了每种规模的相关变量。然后,ED中每位患者的结果进行跟踪并记录。通过接收器操作特性(Auroc)曲线下的区域估计每种比例的严重程度和特异性在99%置信区间(CI)。结果:评分的平均值和标准偏差如下:MSOFA = 4.40±2.58,QSOFA = 0.50±0.70,QSOFA-65 = 0.92±0.96。需要纳入重症监护单元(ICU)的患者用Auroc曲线鉴定如下:MSOFA = 0.882(99%CI = 0.778-0.865); QSOFA = 0.717(99%CI = 0.662-0.773);和QSOFA-65 = 0.771(99%CI = 0.721-0.820),显示MSOFA的敏感性和特异性比其他两种尺度相比,识别需要录取ICU的患者。结论:发现所有三个尺度都可靠鉴定有可能导致ICU的死亡风险的非创伤性患者。然而,由于完成QSOFA和QSOFA-65所需的时间和数据远小于MSOFA,因此建议在ED中使用QSOFA,尤其是QSOFA-65来识别批判性的非创建患者。如何引用本文: Ebrahimian A,Shahcheragh SMT,Fakhr-Movahedi A.比较MSOFA,QSOFA和QSOFA-65的能力和准确性预测非创伤患者的状态提及医院急诊部门:一项潜在研究。印度j crit care med 2020; 24(11):1045-1050.copyright? 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers(P)有限公司

著录项

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