...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of critical care >Accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores for mortality in cancer patients admitted to an intensive care unit with suspected infection
【24h】

Accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores for mortality in cancer patients admitted to an intensive care unit with suspected infection

机译:沙发,QSOFA和SIRS的准确性,癌症患者的死亡率评分入备到疑似感染的重症监护病房

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PurposeTo compare the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA) with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria in critically ill cancer patients with suspected infection. MethodsData for 450 cancer patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in 2014 with a suspected infection were retrospectively analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values for SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS criteria for ICU and hospital mortalities were calculated. Mortalities according to Sepsis-2 stratification (e.g., sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock) and Sepsis-3 stratification (e.g., infection, sepsis, and septic shock) were also compared. ResultsSOFA outperformed SIRS in predicting mortalities for ICU [(AUC, 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 95%, 0.71–0.81) vs. (AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56–0.67),p?
机译:Purposeto比较顺序器官失效评估(沙发)和快速沙发(QSOFA)的预后准确性,具有全身性炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准患有可疑感染的危急性癌症患者的标准。方法为450例癌症患者录取的450名癌症患者(ICU),2014年被回顾性地分析了疑似感染。计算了ICU,QSOFA的接收器操作曲线(AUC)值下的敏感性,特异性和区域,ICU和医院死亡人士的标准。还比较了根据SEPSIS-2分层(例如,败血症,严重脓毒症和脓肌休克)和脓毒症-3分层(例如,感染,脓毒症和脓乳休克)的死亡率。结果掀起了ICU死亡人员的表现优于SIR [(AUC,0.76; 95%置信区间(CI)95%,0.71-0.81)与(AUC,0.62; 95%CI,0.56-0.67),P?<。01 ]和医院[(AUC,0.69; 95%CI,0.65-0.74)与(AUC,0.58; 95%CI,0.52-0.63),P?<β.01)]。患者。同样地,QSOFA对于两个设置的SIRs显而易见的SIR [(AUC,0.71; 95%CI,0.65-0.76,P?=β.02)与(AUC,0.69; 95%CI,0.64-0.74; P?<。01 ), 分别]。结论SOOMA和QSOFA比预测ICU和医院死亡率为疑似癌症患者的疑似感染患者的患者更敏感和准确。

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