...
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery >Comparison of postinjury multiple-organ failure scoring systems: Denver versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment
【24h】

Comparison of postinjury multiple-organ failure scoring systems: Denver versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

机译:损伤后多器官功能衰竭评分系统的比较:丹佛与顺序器官衰竭评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The Denver and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores have been used widely to describe the epidemiology of postinjury multiple-organ failure; however, differences in these scores make it difficult to compare incidence, duration, and mortality of multiple-organ failure. The study aim was to compare the performance of the Denver and SOFA scores with respect to the outcomes of mortality, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and ventilator days. A 60-month prospective epidemiologic study was undertaken at an Australian Level I trauma center. Data were collected on trauma patients that met inclusion criteria (ICU admission, Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 15, age > 18 years, head Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score < 3, survival for >48 hours). Demographics, ISS, physiologic parameters, SOFA and Denver scores, and outcome data were prospectively collected. Sensitivity/specificity and receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated for both scores. Analysis was also completed for a Day 3 postinjury SOFA and Denver score.
机译:丹佛和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分已被广泛用于描述损伤后多器官衰竭的流行病学。然而,这些评分的差异使得难以比较多器官功能衰竭的发生率,持续时间和死亡率。该研究的目的是比较丹佛和SOFA评分在死亡率,重症监护病房住院时间(ICU LOS)和呼吸机天数方面的表现。在澳大利亚一级创伤中心进行了为期60个月的前瞻性流行病学研究。收集符合入组标准(ICU入院,损伤严重度评分[ISS]> 15,年龄> 18岁,头部缩写损伤量表[AIS]评分<3,生存> 48小时)的创伤患者的数据。前瞻性地收集了人口统计学,国际空间站,生理参数,SOFA和丹佛评分以及结果数据。计算两个分数的灵敏度/特异性和受体工作特性曲线。还完成了第3天伤后SOFA和丹佛得分的分析。

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