首页> 外文OA文献 >Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction: insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection
【2h】

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction: insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection

机译:全身性炎症反应综合征,快速的顺序器官功能评估和器官功能障碍:来自ED感染患者的前瞻性数据库的见解

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

Background A proposed revision of sepsis definitions has abandoned the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), defined organ dysfunction as an increase in total Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score of ≥ 2, and conceived “qSOFA” (quick SOFA) as a bedside indicator of organ dysfunction. We aimed to (1) determine the prognostic impact of SIRS, (2) compare the diagnostic accuracy of SIRS and qSOFA for organ dysfunction, and (3) compare standard (Sepsis-2) and revised (Sepsis-3) definitions for organ dysfunction in ED patients with infection. Methods Consecutive ED patients admitted with presumed infection were prospectively enrolled over 3 years. Sufficient observational data were collected to calculate SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, comorbidity, and mortality. Results We enrolled 8,871 patients, with SIRS present in 4,176 (47.1%). SIRS was associated with increased risk of organ dysfunction (relative risk [RR] 3.5) and mortality in patients without organ dysfunction (OR 3.2). SIRS and qSOFA showed similar discrimination for organ dysfunction (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.72 vs 0.73). qSOFA was specific but poorly sensitive for organ dysfunction (96.1% and 29.7%, respectively). Mortality for patients with organ dysfunction was similar for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 (12.5% and 11.4%, respectively), although 29% of patients with Sepsis-3 organ dysfunction did not meet Sepsis-2 criteria. Increasing numbers of Sepsis-2 organ system dysfunctions were associated with greater mortality. Conclusions SIRS was associated with organ dysfunction and mortality, and abandoning the concept appears premature. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 showed high specificity, but poor sensitivity may limit utility as a bedside screening method. Although mortality for organ dysfunction was comparable between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3, more prognostic and clinical information is conveyed using Sepsis-2 regarding number and type of organ dysfunctions. The SOFA score may require recalibration.
机译:背景脓毒症定义的拟议修订已放弃了全身性炎症反应综合征(SIRS),将器官功能障碍定义为总序贯器官功能评估(SOFA)得分≥2,并且将“ qSOFA”(快速SOFA)视为床边器官功能障碍的指标。我们旨在(1)确定SIRS的预后影响;(2)比较SIRS和qSOFA对器官功能障碍的诊断准确性;(3)比较器官功能障碍的标准(Sepsis-2)和修订版(Sepsis-3)定义在有感染的ED患者中。方法前瞻性入组连续3年的假定感染的ED患者。收集了足够的观察数据以计算SIRS,qSOFA,SOFA,合并症和死亡率。结果我们招募了8,871例患者,其中4,176例中有SIRS(47.1%)。 SIRS与器官功能障碍的风险增加(相对风险[RR] 3.5)和无器官功能障碍的患者的死亡率增加(OR 3.2)相关。 SIRS和qSOFA对器官功能障碍也显示出相似的区分度(接受者工作特征曲线下的面积为0.72对0.73)。 qSOFA具有特异性,但对器官功能障碍的敏感性较差(分别为96.1%和29.7%)。尽管脓毒症3型器官功能障碍患者中有29%不符合脓毒症2标准,但器官功能障碍患者的死亡率与脓毒症2和脓毒症3相似(分别为12.5%和11.4%)。脓毒症2器官系统功能障碍的数量增加与更高的死亡率有关。结论SIRS与器官功能障碍和死亡率有关,放弃这一概念为时尚早。 qSOFA得分≥2表现出高特异性,但敏感性差可能会限制其作为床旁筛查方法的实用性。尽管败血症2和败血症3的器官功能障碍死亡率相当,但使用败血症2可以传达有关器官功能障碍的数量和类型的更多预后和临床信息。 SOFA分数可能需要重新校准。

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