期刊文献+

急诊脓毒症死亡风险评分、降钙素原对脓毒血症预后评估的价值 被引量:11

Prognostic Value of Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis and Procalcitonin in Patients with Sepsis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨急诊脓毒症死亡风险(MEDS)评分、血清降钙素原(PCT)对脓毒血症预后评估的临床意义。方法:102例脓毒血症患者按预后分为存活组和死亡组,比较治疗早期MEDS评分、PCT及急性生理与慢性健康状况(APACHEⅡ)评分,并建立ROC曲线观察三者对预后评估的临床价值。结果:两组MEDS评分、PCT和APACHEⅡ评分均有明显差异,且MEDS评分、PCT与APACHEⅡ评分存在明显相关;MEDS评分和PCT预测死亡的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.85和0.78,MEDS的敏感性和特异性分别为80.6%和86.7%,PCT的敏感性和特异性分别为82.3%和78.4%,MEDS评分对脓毒血症预后的评估特异性优于PCT、敏感性逊于PCT;两种联合应用敏感性及特异性更高(86.3%、89.9%)。结论:MEDS评分和PCT对脓毒血症患者预后有较好的预测作用,联合使用可提高敏感性及特异性。 Objective: To explore the prognostic value of mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and procalcitonin (PCT). Methods: 102 patients with sepsis were divided into survival group and death group according to their outcome. The score of MEDS and levels of PCT were measured in the early stage of treatment, and APACHE II were scored. ROC was constructed to observe the prognostic value of the items. Results: There were significant differences in levels of both items and APACHE II score between the two groups, and the both items were obviously correlated with APACHE II score, all P〈0.01. The area under the curve (AUC) of MEDS and PCT were 0.85 and 0.78 respectively. The sensibility and specificity of MEDS were 80.6% and 86.7% ,while the sensibility and specificity of PCT were 82.3% and 78.4%. MEDS was better than PCT in evaluating prognosis of sepsis. The specificity was higher when MEDS and PCT were combined to evaluate the sensitive and specificity (86.3%,89.9%). Conclusions: MEDS and PCT are both good for evaluating prognosis of patients with sepsi, and combined evaluation can increase the sensitive and specificity.
出处 《岭南急诊医学杂志》 2014年第1期21-23,共3页 Lingnan Journal of Emergency Medicine
关键词 脓毒血症 急诊脓毒症死亡风险 降钙素原 急性生理与慢性健康状况评分 预后 sepsis mortality in emergency department sepsis procaleitonin APACHE II score prognosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献27

  • 1谭伟丽,蒋丽红.急性生理学与慢性健康状况Ⅱ评分在外科危重患者中的应用价值[J].中国危重病急救医学,2005,17(5):310-310. 被引量:17
  • 2肖军,钟荣,叶桂山.APACHE、SAPS及LODS3种评分系统在单一重症监护室的应用比较[J].中国危重病急救医学,2006,18(12):743-747. 被引量:32
  • 3Sculier JP, Paesmans M, iVlarkiewicz E, et al. Scoring systems in cancer patients admitted for an acute complication in a medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28 (8): 2786-2792.
  • 4el-Solh AA, Grant BJ. A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for critically ill obstetric Patients. Chest, 1996,110(5) : 1299-1304.
  • 5Schafer JH,Maurer A,Jochimsen F,et al. Outcome prediction models on admission in a medical intensive care unit:do they predict individual outcome? Crit Care Med, 1990, 18 (10) : 1111- 1118.
  • 6Moreau R,Soupison T,Vauquelin P,et al. Comparison of two simplified severity scores (SAPS and APACHE II) for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care Med, 1989,17(5) :409-413.
  • 7Moreno R, Morais P. Outcome prediction in intensive care: results of a prospective, multicentre, portuguese study. Intensive Care Med, 1997,23 (2) : 177-186.
  • 8Del Bufalo C, Morelli A, Bassein L, et at. Severity scores in respiratory intensive care: APACHE I predicted mortality better than SAPS I . Respir Care, 1995,40(10) :1042-1047.
  • 9Markgraf R, Deutschinoff G, Pientka L, et al. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluations I and II and simplified acute physiology score I :a prospective cohort study evaluating these methods to predict outcome in a German interdisciplinary intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28 (1):26-33.
  • 10Ratanarat R, Thanakittiwirun M, Vilaichone W, et al. Prediction of mortality by using the standard scoring systems in a medical intensive care unit in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai, 2005,88 (7) : 949-955.

共引文献71

同被引文献92

  • 1姚咏明,盛志勇,林洪远,柴家科.2001年国际脓毒症定义会议关于脓毒症诊断的新标准[J].中国危重病急救医学,2006,18(11):645-645. 被引量:188
  • 2李轶男,周立新,誉铁鸥,温伟标,方滨,毛克江,邹毅成,黎文研,黎昌.ICU重度脓毒症患者死亡危险因素分析[J].实用医学杂志,2007,23(24):3875-3877. 被引量:18
  • 3Barochia AV, Cui X, Eichacker PQ. The surviving sepsis campaigng re- vised sepsis bundles[J]. Curr Infect Dis Rep,2013,15(5) :385-393.
  • 4Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A, et al. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics[ J]. Pediatr Crit Care Med,2005,6( 1 ) :2-8.
  • 5Seymour CW, Rea TD, Kahn JM, et al. Severe sepsis in pre-hospital e- mergency care : analysis of incidence, care, and outcome [ J ]. Am J Re- spir Crit Care Med ,2012,186 (12) : 1264-1271.
  • 6Carpenter CR, Keim SM, Upadhye S, et al. Risk stratification of the po- tentially septic patient in the emergency department : the Mortality in the Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score [ J ]. J Emerg Med,2009, 37(3) :319-327.
  • 7Sankoff JD, Goyal M, Gaieski DF, et al. Validation of the mortality in e- mergency department sepsis (MEDS) score in patients with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome ( SIRS ) [ J ]. Crit Care Med, 2008,36 (2) :421-426.
  • 8Liu L, Min S, Li W, et al. Pharmacodynamic changes with vecuronium in sepsis are associated with expression of alpha7-and gammanicotinic acethlcholine receptor in an experimental rat model of neuromyopathy [J]. Br J Anaesth,2014, 112: 159.
  • 9Rittirsch D, Flierl MA, Ward PA. Harmful molecular mechanisms in sepsis [J]. Nat Rev Immunol, 2008, 8 (10) :776.
  • 10Song J, Park J, Kim JY, et al. Effect of ulinastatin on perioperative organ function and systemic inflammatory reaction during cardiac surgery: A randomized double-blinded study [J]. Korean J Anesthesiol, 2013, 64(4): 334.

引证文献11

二级引证文献92

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部