The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria in intensive care units

IF 1.1 Q3 NURSING
Eman Mahmoud Qasim Emleek RN, MS , Amani Anwar Khalil
{"title":"The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria in intensive care units","authors":"Eman Mahmoud Qasim Emleek RN, MS ,&nbsp;Amani Anwar Khalil","doi":"10.1016/j.jvn.2023.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) has been assessed by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) 2001 and the ISTH 2018-modified version. More investigations are needed to assess usability and visibility of those DIC scoring systems in the intensive care units (ICU).</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>This study investigated the predictive performance of the ISTH–Overt DIC versions of 28–day mortality in ICUs compared to SOFA as a gold standard assessment tool of sepsis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective design (2015–2017) included 220 adult patients enrolled from medical and surgical ICUs in two major hospitals in Jordan. We calculated ISTH–Overt DIC scores and SOFA score on time of DIC diagnosis. Overt DIC was categorized based on a score of ≥ five for ISTH DIC 2001; and ≥ 4 for ISTH DIC 2018. Provided, a score &gt; 12 was categorized as Multiple–Organ– Dysfunction–Syndrome (MODS) for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Then, 28–day mortality follow-up was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>More than half of sample died before 28–days of follow–up. The analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (<em>ROC</em>) showed that higher scores of ISTH DIC 2001(≥ 5), ISTH DIC 2018 (≥ 4), and SOFA score (&gt;12) were highly associated with 28–day mortality. The ISTH DIC 2001 and SOFA score were superior on the modified ISTH 2018 in predicting 28–day mortality, with an Area Under the Curve (<em>AUC)</em> of (0.724 vs. 0.822 vs. 0.507, respectively). Yet, the accuracy of the SOFA score was better than the ISTH DIC 2001. Conclusion: This study suggests that ISTH DIC 2001 score is helpful when applied on medical and surgical ICU Jordanian populations. It showed better results compared to the Modified ISTH DIC 2018 in mortality prediction, regardless of the underlying diseases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45419,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062030323000493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) has been assessed by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) 2001 and the ISTH 2018-modified version. More investigations are needed to assess usability and visibility of those DIC scoring systems in the intensive care units (ICU).

Aims

This study investigated the predictive performance of the ISTH–Overt DIC versions of 28–day mortality in ICUs compared to SOFA as a gold standard assessment tool of sepsis.

Methods

A retrospective design (2015–2017) included 220 adult patients enrolled from medical and surgical ICUs in two major hospitals in Jordan. We calculated ISTH–Overt DIC scores and SOFA score on time of DIC diagnosis. Overt DIC was categorized based on a score of ≥ five for ISTH DIC 2001; and ≥ 4 for ISTH DIC 2018. Provided, a score > 12 was categorized as Multiple–Organ– Dysfunction–Syndrome (MODS) for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Then, 28–day mortality follow-up was performed.

Results

More than half of sample died before 28–days of follow–up. The analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) showed that higher scores of ISTH DIC 2001(≥ 5), ISTH DIC 2018 (≥ 4), and SOFA score (>12) were highly associated with 28–day mortality. The ISTH DIC 2001 and SOFA score were superior on the modified ISTH 2018 in predicting 28–day mortality, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of (0.724 vs. 0.822 vs. 0.507, respectively). Yet, the accuracy of the SOFA score was better than the ISTH DIC 2001. Conclusion: This study suggests that ISTH DIC 2001 score is helpful when applied on medical and surgical ICU Jordanian populations. It showed better results compared to the Modified ISTH DIC 2018 in mortality prediction, regardless of the underlying diseases.

国际血栓和止血学会(ISTH)在重症监护病房的标准
背景弥散性血管内凝血(DIC)由国际血栓与止血学会(ISTH)2001年版和ISTH 2018年修订版进行评估。本研究调查了 ISTH-Overt DIC 版本与作为败血症金标准评估工具的 SOFA 相比,对重症监护病房(ICU)28 天死亡率的预测性能。我们计算了 DIC 诊断时的 ISTH-Overt DIC 评分和 SOFA 评分。2001 年 ISTH DIC 的得分≥ 5 分;2018 年 ISTH DIC 的得分≥ 4 分,根据得分对表层 DIC 进行分类。根据ISTH DIC 2001评分标准,DIC≥5分为多器官功能障碍综合征(MODS);ISTH DIC 2018评分标准,DIC≥4分为多器官功能障碍综合征(MODS)。结果 超过一半的样本在随访 28 天前死亡。受试者操作特征(ROC)分析显示,ISTH DIC 2001(≥5分)、ISTH DIC 2018(≥4分)和SOFA评分(>12分)越高,28天死亡率越高。ISTH DIC 2001 和 SOFA 评分在预测 28 天死亡率方面优于改良的 ISTH 2018,其曲线下面积(AUC)分别为(0.724 vs. 0.822 vs. 0.507)。然而,SOFA 评分的准确性优于 ISTH DIC 2001。结论本研究表明,ISTH DIC 2001 评分适用于约旦的内科和外科重症监护病房人群。与改良版 ISTH DIC 2018 相比,它在预测死亡率方面显示出更好的结果,而与潜在疾病无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Journal of Vascular Nursing provides clinical information regarding aortic and peripheral aneurysms, upper and lower extremity arterial disease, acute and chronic venous disease, and more. Original, peer-reviewed articles present descriptions, etiologies, diagnostic procedures, medical and surgical treatment and nursing implications of vascular system disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信