BACKGROUND:The quick sequential organ failure assessment(qSOFA)is recommended to identify sepsis and predict sepsis mortality.However,some studies have recently shown its poor performance in sepsis mortality predictio...BACKGROUND:The quick sequential organ failure assessment(qSOFA)is recommended to identify sepsis and predict sepsis mortality.However,some studies have recently shown its poor performance in sepsis mortality prediction.To enhance its effectiveness,researchers have developed various revised versions of the qSOFA by adding other parameters,such as the lactate-enhanced qSOFA(LqSOFA),the procalcitonin-enhanced qSOFA(PqSOFA),and the modified qSOFA(MqSOFA).This study aimed to compare the performance of these versions of the qSOFA in predicting sepsis mortality in the emergency department(ED).METHODS:This retrospective study analyzed data obtained from an electronic register system of adult patients with sepsis between January 1 and December 31,2019.Receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve analyses were performed to determine the area under the curve(AUC),with sensitivity,specificity,and positive and negative predictive values calculated for the various scores.RESULTS:Among the 936 enrolled cases,there were 835 survivors and 101 deaths.The AUCs of the LqSOFA,MqSOFA,PqSOFA,and qSOFA were 0.740,0.731,0.712,and 0.705,respectively.The sensitivity of the LqSOFA,MqSOFA,PqSOFA,and qSOFA were 64.36%,51.40%,71.29%,and 39.60%,respectively.The specificity of the four scores were 70.78%,80.96%,61.68%,and 91.62%,respectively.The LqSOFA and MqSOFA were superior to the qSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality.CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with sepsis in the ED,the performance of the PqSOFA was similar to that of the qSOFA and the values of the LqSOFA and MqSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality were greater compared to qSOFA.As the added parameter of the MqSOFA was more convenient compared to the LqSOFA,the MqSOFA could be used as a candidate for the revised qSOFA to increase the performance of the early prediction of sepsis mortality.展开更多
BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index ...BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Glasgow score,harmless acute pancreatitis score(HAPS),Ranson’s score,and sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)evaluate AP severity and predict mortality.AIM To evaluate these indices'utility in predicting severity,intensive care unit(ICU)admission,and mortality.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 653 patients with AP from July 2009 to September 2016 was performed.The demographic,clinical profile,and patient outcomes were collected.SAP was defined as per the revised Atlanta classification.Values for APACHE II score,BISAP,HAPS,and SOFA within 24 h of admission were retrospectively obtained based on laboratory results and patient evaluation recorded on a secure hospital-based online electronic platform.Data with<10%missing data was imputed via mean substitution.Other patient information such as demographics,disease etiology,and patient outcomes were also derived from electronic medical records.RESULTS The mean age was 58.7±17.5 years,with 58.7%males.Gallstones(n=404,61.9%),alcohol(n=38,5.8%),and hypertriglyceridemia(n=19,2.9%)were more common aetiologies.81(12.4%)patients developed SAP,20(3.1%)required ICU admission,and 12(1.8%)deaths were attributed to SAP.Ranson’s score and APACHE-II demonstrated the highest sensitivity in predicting SAP(92.6%,80.2%respectively),ICU admission(100%),and mortality(100%).While SOFA and BISAP demonstrated lowest sensitivity in predicting SAP(13.6%,24.7%respectively),ICU admission(40.0%,25.0%respectively)and mortality(50.0%,25.5%respectively).However,SOFA demonstrated the highest specificity in predicting SAP(99.7%),ICU admission(99.2%),and mortality(98.9%).SOFA demonstrated the highest positive predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and overall accuracy in predicting SAP,ICU admission,and mortality.SOFA and Ranson’s score demonstrated the highest area under receiver-operator curves at 48 h in predicting SAP(0.966,0.857 respectively),ICU admission(0.943,0.946 respectively),and mortality(0.968,0.917 respectively).CONCLUSION The SOFA and 48-h Ranson’s scores accurately predict severity,ICU admission,and mortality in AP,with more favorable statistics for the SOFA score.展开更多
目的探讨电子序贯器官衰竭评分(simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records,eSOFA)对急诊脓毒症患者28、90 d及1年预后的预测价值,并与序贯器官衰竭评分(sequential organ failure assessment,SO...目的探讨电子序贯器官衰竭评分(simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records,eSOFA)对急诊脓毒症患者28、90 d及1年预后的预测价值,并与序贯器官衰竭评分(sequential organ failure assessment,SOFA)、急性生理学与慢性健康状况Ⅱ评分(acute physiology and chronic health evaluationⅡ,APACHEⅡ)进行比较。方法连续纳入2018年12月1日至2021年1月31日中国康复研究中心急诊重症监护室收治的脓毒症患者。分别绘制eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分对患者28、90 d及1年预后的受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线,计算相应的曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC),并进行比较。根据eSOFA评分的截断值将患者分为eSOFA评分≤2分和eSOFA评分>2分两组,比较两组的一般临床特点。结果本研究最终纳入197例脓毒症患者,年龄为84(74~88)岁,其中男119例。纳入患者28、90 d及1年的病死率分别为38.6%(76/197)、51.8%(102/197)及58.9%(116/197)。eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分对脓毒症患者28、90 d及1年预后均具有预测能力,但三者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),eSOFA评分对脓毒症患者1年死亡预测模型的拟和优度差,对1年预后预测效果不佳(P=0.01)。与eSOFA评分≤2分组相比,eSOFA评分>2分组患者死亡风险高(P<0.05),SOFA评分[分:5(4,7)vs.9(7,12)]和APACHEⅡ评分[分:23(18,27)vs.28(23,35)]更差,且更多患者发生急性肾损伤(acute kidney injury,AKI)(61.8%vs.83.6%)及接受血管活性药物(10.3%vs.59.1%)和机械通气(19.1%vs.50.8%)治疗。结论eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分均能有效评估脓毒症患者的中短期预后,优化患者早期治疗策略,但eSOFA评分简便易计算,更适合应用于急诊科。展开更多
目的:探究外周血高迁移率族蛋白-1(high mobility group box protein 1,HMGB1)、糖基化终产物受体(receptor for advanced glycation endproducts,RAGE)和快速顺序器官功能衰竭评估(quick sequential organ failure assessment,qSOFA)...目的:探究外周血高迁移率族蛋白-1(high mobility group box protein 1,HMGB1)、糖基化终产物受体(receptor for advanced glycation endproducts,RAGE)和快速顺序器官功能衰竭评估(quick sequential organ failure assessment,qSOFA)评分在急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤评估中的应用价值。方法:选择2020年1月-2022年12月就诊于兴山县人民医院的129例急性呼吸衰竭患者作为观察对象,根据患者是否并发心肌损伤将其分为心肌损伤组(n=43)和非心肌损伤组(n=86)。收集所有研究对象入组时的年龄、性别、体重指数等一般资料;评估受试者qSOFA评分,检测受试者外周血HMGB1和RAGE水平;logistic回归分析急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤的影响因素;受试者工作特性曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve,ROC)分析HMGB1、RAGE联合qSOFA评分对急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤的评估价值。结果:心肌损伤组一秒率[第1秒用力呼气容积(forced expiratory volume in one second,FEV1)/用力肺活量(forced vital capacity,FVC)%]和动脉血氧分压(arterial partial pressure of oxygen,PaO2)显著低于非心肌损伤组,动脉血二氧化碳分压(arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure,PaCO_(2))显著高于非心肌损伤组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);心肌损伤组外周血HMGB1、RAGE水平和q SOFA评分均显著高于非心肌损伤组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);logistic回归分析显示,HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分升高均为急性呼吸衰竭患者并发心肌损伤的独立危险因素(P<0.05);ROC分析显示,HMGB1、RAGE水平、qSOFA评分联合检测ROC曲线下面积(AUC)明显高于各指标单独检测,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分升高均为急性呼吸衰竭患者并发心肌损伤的独立危险因素;HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分均可对急性呼吸衰竭患者心肌损伤的发生进行评估,且联合评估的价值更高。展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND:The quick sequential organ failure assessment(qSOFA)is recommended to identify sepsis and predict sepsis mortality.However,some studies have recently shown its poor performance in sepsis mortality prediction.To enhance its effectiveness,researchers have developed various revised versions of the qSOFA by adding other parameters,such as the lactate-enhanced qSOFA(LqSOFA),the procalcitonin-enhanced qSOFA(PqSOFA),and the modified qSOFA(MqSOFA).This study aimed to compare the performance of these versions of the qSOFA in predicting sepsis mortality in the emergency department(ED).METHODS:This retrospective study analyzed data obtained from an electronic register system of adult patients with sepsis between January 1 and December 31,2019.Receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve analyses were performed to determine the area under the curve(AUC),with sensitivity,specificity,and positive and negative predictive values calculated for the various scores.RESULTS:Among the 936 enrolled cases,there were 835 survivors and 101 deaths.The AUCs of the LqSOFA,MqSOFA,PqSOFA,and qSOFA were 0.740,0.731,0.712,and 0.705,respectively.The sensitivity of the LqSOFA,MqSOFA,PqSOFA,and qSOFA were 64.36%,51.40%,71.29%,and 39.60%,respectively.The specificity of the four scores were 70.78%,80.96%,61.68%,and 91.62%,respectively.The LqSOFA and MqSOFA were superior to the qSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality.CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with sepsis in the ED,the performance of the PqSOFA was similar to that of the qSOFA and the values of the LqSOFA and MqSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality were greater compared to qSOFA.As the added parameter of the MqSOFA was more convenient compared to the LqSOFA,the MqSOFA could be used as a candidate for the revised qSOFA to increase the performance of the early prediction of sepsis mortality.
文摘BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Glasgow score,harmless acute pancreatitis score(HAPS),Ranson’s score,and sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)evaluate AP severity and predict mortality.AIM To evaluate these indices'utility in predicting severity,intensive care unit(ICU)admission,and mortality.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 653 patients with AP from July 2009 to September 2016 was performed.The demographic,clinical profile,and patient outcomes were collected.SAP was defined as per the revised Atlanta classification.Values for APACHE II score,BISAP,HAPS,and SOFA within 24 h of admission were retrospectively obtained based on laboratory results and patient evaluation recorded on a secure hospital-based online electronic platform.Data with<10%missing data was imputed via mean substitution.Other patient information such as demographics,disease etiology,and patient outcomes were also derived from electronic medical records.RESULTS The mean age was 58.7±17.5 years,with 58.7%males.Gallstones(n=404,61.9%),alcohol(n=38,5.8%),and hypertriglyceridemia(n=19,2.9%)were more common aetiologies.81(12.4%)patients developed SAP,20(3.1%)required ICU admission,and 12(1.8%)deaths were attributed to SAP.Ranson’s score and APACHE-II demonstrated the highest sensitivity in predicting SAP(92.6%,80.2%respectively),ICU admission(100%),and mortality(100%).While SOFA and BISAP demonstrated lowest sensitivity in predicting SAP(13.6%,24.7%respectively),ICU admission(40.0%,25.0%respectively)and mortality(50.0%,25.5%respectively).However,SOFA demonstrated the highest specificity in predicting SAP(99.7%),ICU admission(99.2%),and mortality(98.9%).SOFA demonstrated the highest positive predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and overall accuracy in predicting SAP,ICU admission,and mortality.SOFA and Ranson’s score demonstrated the highest area under receiver-operator curves at 48 h in predicting SAP(0.966,0.857 respectively),ICU admission(0.943,0.946 respectively),and mortality(0.968,0.917 respectively).CONCLUSION The SOFA and 48-h Ranson’s scores accurately predict severity,ICU admission,and mortality in AP,with more favorable statistics for the SOFA score.
文摘目的探讨电子序贯器官衰竭评分(simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records,eSOFA)对急诊脓毒症患者28、90 d及1年预后的预测价值,并与序贯器官衰竭评分(sequential organ failure assessment,SOFA)、急性生理学与慢性健康状况Ⅱ评分(acute physiology and chronic health evaluationⅡ,APACHEⅡ)进行比较。方法连续纳入2018年12月1日至2021年1月31日中国康复研究中心急诊重症监护室收治的脓毒症患者。分别绘制eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分对患者28、90 d及1年预后的受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线,计算相应的曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC),并进行比较。根据eSOFA评分的截断值将患者分为eSOFA评分≤2分和eSOFA评分>2分两组,比较两组的一般临床特点。结果本研究最终纳入197例脓毒症患者,年龄为84(74~88)岁,其中男119例。纳入患者28、90 d及1年的病死率分别为38.6%(76/197)、51.8%(102/197)及58.9%(116/197)。eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分对脓毒症患者28、90 d及1年预后均具有预测能力,但三者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),eSOFA评分对脓毒症患者1年死亡预测模型的拟和优度差,对1年预后预测效果不佳(P=0.01)。与eSOFA评分≤2分组相比,eSOFA评分>2分组患者死亡风险高(P<0.05),SOFA评分[分:5(4,7)vs.9(7,12)]和APACHEⅡ评分[分:23(18,27)vs.28(23,35)]更差,且更多患者发生急性肾损伤(acute kidney injury,AKI)(61.8%vs.83.6%)及接受血管活性药物(10.3%vs.59.1%)和机械通气(19.1%vs.50.8%)治疗。结论eSOFA、SOFA和APACHEⅡ评分均能有效评估脓毒症患者的中短期预后,优化患者早期治疗策略,但eSOFA评分简便易计算,更适合应用于急诊科。
文摘目的:探究外周血高迁移率族蛋白-1(high mobility group box protein 1,HMGB1)、糖基化终产物受体(receptor for advanced glycation endproducts,RAGE)和快速顺序器官功能衰竭评估(quick sequential organ failure assessment,qSOFA)评分在急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤评估中的应用价值。方法:选择2020年1月-2022年12月就诊于兴山县人民医院的129例急性呼吸衰竭患者作为观察对象,根据患者是否并发心肌损伤将其分为心肌损伤组(n=43)和非心肌损伤组(n=86)。收集所有研究对象入组时的年龄、性别、体重指数等一般资料;评估受试者qSOFA评分,检测受试者外周血HMGB1和RAGE水平;logistic回归分析急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤的影响因素;受试者工作特性曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve,ROC)分析HMGB1、RAGE联合qSOFA评分对急性呼吸衰竭并发心肌损伤的评估价值。结果:心肌损伤组一秒率[第1秒用力呼气容积(forced expiratory volume in one second,FEV1)/用力肺活量(forced vital capacity,FVC)%]和动脉血氧分压(arterial partial pressure of oxygen,PaO2)显著低于非心肌损伤组,动脉血二氧化碳分压(arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure,PaCO_(2))显著高于非心肌损伤组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);心肌损伤组外周血HMGB1、RAGE水平和q SOFA评分均显著高于非心肌损伤组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);logistic回归分析显示,HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分升高均为急性呼吸衰竭患者并发心肌损伤的独立危险因素(P<0.05);ROC分析显示,HMGB1、RAGE水平、qSOFA评分联合检测ROC曲线下面积(AUC)明显高于各指标单独检测,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分升高均为急性呼吸衰竭患者并发心肌损伤的独立危险因素;HMGB1、RAGE水平和qSOFA评分均可对急性呼吸衰竭患者心肌损伤的发生进行评估,且联合评估的价值更高。
