首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparative prognostic accuracy of sepsis scores for hospital mortality in adults with suspected infection in non-ICU and ICU at an academic public hospital
【2h】

Comparative prognostic accuracy of sepsis scores for hospital mortality in adults with suspected infection in non-ICU and ICU at an academic public hospital

机译:学术公立医院非ICU和ICU疑似医院死亡率脓毒症评分脓毒症评分的比较预后准确性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundSepsis is a global healthcare challenge and reliable tools are needed to identify patients and stratify their risk. Here we compare the prognostic accuracy of the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and national early warning system (NEWS) scores for hospital mortality and other outcomes amongst patients with suspected infection at an academic public hospital.Measurements and main results10,981 adult patients with suspected infection hospitalized at a U.S. academic public hospital between 2011-2017 were retrospectively identified. Primary exposures were the maximum SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, and NEWS scores upon inclusion. Comparative prognostic accuracy for the primary outcome of hospital mortality was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Secondary outcomes included mortality in ICU versus non-ICU settings, ICU transfer, ICU length of stay (LOS) >3 days, and hospital LOS >7 days. Adjusted analyses were performed using a model of baseline risk for hospital mortality. 774 patients (7.1%) died in hospital. Discrimination for hospital mortality was highest for SOFA (AUROC 0.90 [95% CI, 0.89-0.91]), followed by NEWS (AUROC 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.86]), qSOFA (AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85]), and SIRS (AUROC 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.81]; p<0.001 for all comparisons). NEWS (AUROC 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95]) outperformed other scores in predicting ICU transfer (qSOFA AUROC 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87-0.91]; SOFA AUROC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.82-0.87]; SIRS AUROC 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.83]; p3 days (SOFA AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85; qSOFA AUROC, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.84]; SIRS AUROC, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.74-0.76]; p<0.002 for all comparisons).ConclusionsMultivariate prediction scores, such as SOFA and NEWS, had greater prognostic accuracy than qSOFA or SIRS for hospital mortality, ICU transfer, and ICU length of stay. Complex sepsis scores may offer enhanced prognostic performance as compared to simple sepsis scores in inpatient hospital settings where more complex scores can be readily calculated.
机译:BackgroundSepsis是一个全球性的卫生保健挑战,并且需要可靠的工具来确定患者和他们的分层风险。在这里,我们比较败血症相关器官衰竭评估(SOFA),快速SOFA(qSOFA),全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)和国家预警系统(NEWS)得分为医院死亡率和其他成果的预测准确度之间的患者在一个学术公共hospital.Measurements和主要results10,981成年患者疑似感染,在2011-2017年间的美国学术公立医院住院疑似感染进行回顾性鉴定。主要风险是最大的先生们,在包容qSOFA,沙发和新闻分数。对于住院死亡率的主要成果比较预后准确性是使用接收器操作特征曲线(AUROC)下的面积进行评估。次要终点包括在ICU与非ICU设置,ICU转移,停留(LOS)>3天的ICU长度,和医院LOS> 7天的死亡率。使用的医院死亡率基线风险模型进行校正分析。 774例(7.1%)在医院死亡。对于住院死亡率歧视是最高为SOFA(AUROC 0.90 [95%CI,0.89-0.91]),其次是NEWS(AUROC 0.85 [95%CI,0.84-0.86]),qSOFA(AUROC 0.84 [95%CI,0.83- 0.85]),和SIRS(AUROC 0.79 [95%CI,0.78-0.81; p <0.001所有的比较)。 NEWS(AUROC 0.94 [95%CI,0.93-0.95])优于其他的分数在预测ICU转移(qSOFA AUROC 0.89 [95%CI,0.87-0.91]; SOFA AUROC,0.84 [95%CI,0.82-0.87]; SIRS AUROC 0.81 [95%CI,0.79-0.83]; P3天(SOFA AUROC 0.84 [95%CI,0.83-0.85; qSOFA AUROC,0.83 [95%CI,0.83-0.84]; SIRS AUROC,0.75 [95%CI, 0.74-0.76; p <0.002,所有比较).ConclusionsMultivariate预测分数,如沙发和NEWS,具有更大的预后准确性比qSOFA或医院死亡率,ICU转移,和ICU住院时间SIRS复杂脓毒症得分可以提供增强。预后性能相比,在医院住院设置简单败血症分数,其中更复杂的分数可以被容易地计算为。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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