...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of emergency medicine: Official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine >Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?
【24h】

Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?

机译:脓毒症患者在急诊部门:分层使用临床印象评分,易感,感染,响应和器官功能障碍得分或快速顺序器官失效评估分数?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the stratification of sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED) for ICU admission and mortality using the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores with clinical judgement assessed by the ED staff.Patients and methodsThis was a prospective observational study in the ED of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Adult nontrauma patients with suspected infection and at least two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria were included. The primary outcome was direct ED to ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital, 28-day and 6-month mortality, indirect ICU admission and length of stay. Clinical judgement was recorded using the Clinical Impression Scores (CIS), appraised by a nurse and the attending physician. The PIRO and qSOFA scores were calculated from medical records.ResultsWe included 193 patients: 103 presented with sepsis, 81 with severe sepsis and nine with septic shock. Fifteen patients required direct ICU admission. The CIS scores of nurse [area under the curve (AUC)=0.896] and the attending physician (AUC=0.861), in conjunction with PIRO (AUC=0.876) and qSOFA scores (AUC=0.849), predicted direct ICU admission. The CIS scores did not predict any of the mortality endpoints. The PIRO score predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.764), 28-day (AUC=0.784) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.695). The qSOFA score also predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.823), 28-day (AUC=0.848) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.620).ConclusionClinical judgement is a fast and reliable method to stratify between ICU and general ward admission in ED patients with sepsis. The PIRO and qSOFA scores do not add value to this stratification, but perform better on the prediction of mortality. In sepsis patients, therefore, the principle of treat first what kills first' can be supplemented with judge first and calculate later'.
机译:本研究的目的是使用临床,感染,反应和器官功能障碍(Piro)和快速顺序的器官衰竭评估(Piro)和临床分数比较急诊部(ED)在急诊部(ED)中脓毒症患者的分层进行比较ED员工评估的判决。患者和方法,是在高等教育教学医院的ED中是一个前瞻性观察研究。包括疑似感染的成人非法抑制患者和至少两个全身炎症反应综合征标准。主要结果是指向ICU入学。二次结果是医院,28天和6个月的死亡率,间接ICU入场和逗留时间。使用临床印象评分(CIS)记录临床判断,由护士和主治医师评估。 Piro和QSOFA分数由医疗记录计算。培养百合包括193名患者:103例患有Sepsis,81例,具有严重脓毒症和九种患者。十五名患者需要直接ICU入场。 CIS评分的护士[曲线下的区域(AUC)= 0.896]和参加医师(AUC = 0.861),与Piro(AUC = 0.876)和QSOFA分数(AUC = 0.849)相结合,预测直接ICU入学。 CIS分数未预测任何死亡终点。 Piro评分预测在医院(AUC = 0.764),28天(AUC = 0.784)和6个月的死亡率(AUC = 0.695)。 QSOFA得分也预计在医院内(AUC = 0.823),28天(AUC = 0.848)和6个月死亡率(AUC = 0.620).ConclususedClinical判断是ICU与普通病房入场区之间分层的快速可靠的方法患有败血症的患者。 Piro和QSOFA分数不会增加该分层的价值,但在预测死亡率时表现更好。因此,在败血症患者中,首先杀死的原则首先杀死了什么,可以在审判中首先补充并计算出来'。

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