期刊文献+

不同评分系统对老年导管相关性血流感染预后评估的比较研究 被引量:6

Values of scoring systems in assessment of prognosis of elderly patients with catheter-related bloodstream infections
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较急性生理和慢性健康状况评分(APACHE-Ⅱ评分)、序贯性脏器衰竭评价评分(SOFA评分)和简化急性生理评分(SAPS-Ⅱ评分)3种评分系统对老年导管相关性血流感染患者1周、4周预后的评估价值。方法收集2009年1月-2015年12月260例老年导管相关性血流感染患者临床资料,整理感染前24h(Day-1)、感染后24h(Day1)的APACHE-Ⅱ、SOFA、SAPS-Ⅱ评分,比较不同时间节点(1周、4周)各个评分系统死亡组与生存组的评分差异,绘制ROC曲线,通过比较ROC曲线下面积(AUC)比较不同评分系统对预后的评估价值。结果患者平均年龄(88.6+5.8)岁,感染前后APACHE-Ⅱ评分、SOFA评分、SAPS-Ⅱ评分在发生导管相关性血流感染1周、4周的死亡组与生存组之间均存在差异性(P<0.001),ROC曲线的AUC分别为(0.849、0.878、0.786、0.887、0.843、0.867)、(0.805、0.829、0.789、0.850、0.794、0.817)。结论对于老年导管相关性血流感染4周内预后评估,感染前24小时评分优于感染24小时评分,SOFA评分优于APACHE-Ⅱ评分及SAPS-Ⅱ评分。 OBJECTIVE To compare the values of three scoring systems such as the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation(APACHE)II score,sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)score and simplified acute physiology scores(SAPS)Ⅱin assessment of 1-week and 4-week prognosis of elderly patients with catheter-related bloodstream infections(CRBSI).METHODS The clinical data were collected from 260 elderly patients with CRBSI who were treated from Jan 2009 to Dec 2015.The APACHE-Ⅱ score,SOFA score and SAPS-Ⅱ were recorded 24 hours before infection(Day-1)and 24 hours after infection(Day1),the scores of the scoring systems were compared between the death group and the survival group at Week 1 and Week 4,the ROC curves were drawn,and the areas under ROC curves(AUC)were compared so as to compare the values of the scoring systems in assessment of the prognosis.RESULTS The mean age of the patients was(88.6+5.8)years old.There were significant differences in the APACHE-Ⅱ score,SOFA score,and SAPS-Ⅱ before and after the infection between the death group and the survival group at week 1 and week 4 of CRBSI(P〈0.001).The AUCs of ROCs were respectively(0.849,0.878,0.786,0.887,0.843,0.867)and(0.805,0.829,0.789,0.850,0.794,0.817).CONCLUSION The scores of evaluation of prognosis of the elderly patients with CRBSI within 4 weeks are higher at 24 hours before the infections than at 24 hours after the infections,and the SOFA score is superior to the APACHE-Ⅱ score and SAPS-Ⅱ.
出处 《中华医院感染学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2018年第5期707-710,共4页 Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology
关键词 老年 导管相关性血流感染 预后评估 APACHE-Ⅱ评分 SOFA评分 SAPS-Ⅱ评分 The elderly Catheter-related bloodstream infection Evaluation of prognosis APACHE-Ⅱ score SOFA score SAPS-Ⅱ score
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献33

  • 1骆俊,吴菊芳.血流感染诊断及治疗进展[J].中国抗感染化疗杂志,2005,5(2):119-123. 被引量:29
  • 2詹思延.系统综述和Meta分析[M]//李立明.流行病学.北京:人民卫生出版社,2007:180.
  • 3Sutton AJ,Abrams KR,Jones DR,et al.Methods for Meta-analysis in medical research[M].Chichester,England:John Wiley & Sons,Ltd,2000.
  • 4詹思延.Meta分析[M] //詹思延.循证医学和循证保健.北京:北京医科大学出版社,2002:138-151.
  • 5Wisplinghoff H,Bischoff T,Tallent SM,et al.Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals:analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study[J].Clin Infect Dis,2004,39(1):309-317.
  • 6Demirdal T,Demirturk N,Cetinkaya Z,et al.Evaluation of baeteremias in a Turkish university hospital:3-year outcomes[J].Adv Ther,2007,24:841-851.
  • 7Friedman ND,Kaye KS,Stout JE,et al.Health core-associated bloodstream infections in adults:a reason to change the accepted definition of community-acquired infections[J].Ann Intern Med,2002,137(10):791-797.
  • 8Leibovici L,Pitlik SD,Konisberger H.Bloodstream infections in patients older than eighty years[J].Age Ageing,1993,22(6):431-442.
  • 9Valles J,Calbo E,Anoro E,et al.Bloodstream infections in adults:importance of healthcare-associated infections[J].J Infect,2008,56 (1):27-34.
  • 10Edmond MB,Wallace SE,MeClish DK,et al.Nosceomial bloodstream infections in United States hospitals:a three-year analysis[J].Clin Infect Dis,1999,29(2):239-244.

共引文献530

同被引文献64

引证文献6

二级引证文献30

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