Mortality Assesment of Pediatric Septic Patients Through Pediatric Sofa+Anion Gap and Pelod-2 Scores

Johaan Pawe Siampa, Arie Utariani, Elizeus Hanindito
{"title":"Mortality Assesment of Pediatric Septic Patients Through Pediatric Sofa+Anion Gap and Pelod-2 Scores","authors":"Johaan Pawe Siampa, Arie Utariani, Elizeus Hanindito","doi":"10.20473/fmi.v58i4.14726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highlight:\n\nSepsis and septic shock cause morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients.\nThe accuracy of pediatric sequential organ failure assessment and anion gap (pSOFA+AG) was compared with AG and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction-2 (AG+PELOD-2).\nThe mortality assessment of pediatric septic patients showed that pSOFA was more sensitive than PELOD-2, while pSOFA+AG was not more sensitive than PELOD-2.\n\n \nAbstract:\nSepsis and septic shock are some of the causes of morbidity and mortality (50-60%) in pediatric patients treated in intensive care rooms. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score combined with anion gap (AG) score to Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) score in the assessment of mortality in pediatric septic patients at the Resuscitation Room of Dr. Soetomo Geeneral Academic Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. This was a retrospective observational cohort study using pediatric sepsis diagnosis guidelines based on the 2016 Pediatric Sepsis Consensus and medical records between January-December 2018. All data of patients aged 1 month to 16 years with suspected infection at the Resuscitation Room were collected based on predisposing infections, signs of infection, and warning signs. Organ dysfunction was assessed by calculating the pSOFA+AG scores, PELOD-2 scores, and corrected anion gap (cAG) in the first 24 hours. Sepsis mortality was assessed by comparing the results of the pSOFA, pSOFA+AG, and PELOD-2. The results showed 94.9% sensitivity and 70.0% specificity (p<0.0001) in the pSOFA, 89.9% sensitivity and 71.3% specificity (p<0.0001) in the PELOD-2, 79.7% sensitivity and 65% specificity (p<0.0001) in the AG, 79.7% sensitivity and 73.8% specificity (p<0.0001) in the cAG, and 79.3% sensitivity (p<0.0001) in the pSOFA+AG. In conclusion, pSOFA was more sensitive than PELOD-2, while the use of pSOFA+AG was not more sensitive than PELOD-2 in assessing the mortality of pediatric septic patients.","PeriodicalId":32666,"journal":{"name":"Folia Medica Indonesiana","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Medica Indonesiana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20473/fmi.v58i4.14726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Highlight: Sepsis and septic shock cause morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients. The accuracy of pediatric sequential organ failure assessment and anion gap (pSOFA+AG) was compared with AG and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction-2 (AG+PELOD-2). The mortality assessment of pediatric septic patients showed that pSOFA was more sensitive than PELOD-2, while pSOFA+AG was not more sensitive than PELOD-2.   Abstract: Sepsis and septic shock are some of the causes of morbidity and mortality (50-60%) in pediatric patients treated in intensive care rooms. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score combined with anion gap (AG) score to Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) score in the assessment of mortality in pediatric septic patients at the Resuscitation Room of Dr. Soetomo Geeneral Academic Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. This was a retrospective observational cohort study using pediatric sepsis diagnosis guidelines based on the 2016 Pediatric Sepsis Consensus and medical records between January-December 2018. All data of patients aged 1 month to 16 years with suspected infection at the Resuscitation Room were collected based on predisposing infections, signs of infection, and warning signs. Organ dysfunction was assessed by calculating the pSOFA+AG scores, PELOD-2 scores, and corrected anion gap (cAG) in the first 24 hours. Sepsis mortality was assessed by comparing the results of the pSOFA, pSOFA+AG, and PELOD-2. The results showed 94.9% sensitivity and 70.0% specificity (p<0.0001) in the pSOFA, 89.9% sensitivity and 71.3% specificity (p<0.0001) in the PELOD-2, 79.7% sensitivity and 65% specificity (p<0.0001) in the AG, 79.7% sensitivity and 73.8% specificity (p<0.0001) in the cAG, and 79.3% sensitivity (p<0.0001) in the pSOFA+AG. In conclusion, pSOFA was more sensitive than PELOD-2, while the use of pSOFA+AG was not more sensitive than PELOD-2 in assessing the mortality of pediatric septic patients.
通过儿童沙发+阴离子间隙和Pelod-2评分评估儿童脓毒症患者死亡率
重点:败血症和脓毒性休克在儿科患者中引起发病率和死亡率。比较小儿序期脏器功能衰竭评估及阴离子间隙(pSOFA+AG)与AG及小儿logistic脏器功能障碍-2 (AG+PELOD-2)的准确性。儿童脓毒症患者的死亡率评估显示,pSOFA比PELOD-2更敏感,而pSOFA+AG不比PELOD-2更敏感。摘要:脓毒症和感染性休克是重症监护室儿科患者发病和死亡的原因之一(50-60%)。本研究旨在比较印度尼西亚泗水Dr. Soetomo综合学术医院复苏室儿科顺序器官衰竭评估(pSOFA)评分联合阴离子间隙(AG)评分与儿科Logistic器官功能障碍-2 (PELOD-2)评分在评估儿童败血症患者死亡率中的准确性。这是一项基于2016年儿科败血症共识和2018年1月至12月医疗记录的儿童败血症诊断指南的回顾性观察性队列研究。根据易感感染、感染体征和预警信号收集复苏室1个月至16岁疑似感染患者的所有资料。通过计算前24小时的pSOFA+AG评分、PELOD-2评分和校正阴离子间隙(cAG)来评估器官功能障碍。通过比较pSOFA、pSOFA+AG和PELOD-2的结果来评估脓毒症死亡率。结果显示,pSOFA敏感性为94.9%,特异性为70.0% (p<0.0001), PELOD-2敏感性为89.9%,特异性为71.3% (p<0.0001), AG敏感性为79.7%,特异性为65% (p<0.0001), cAG敏感性为79.7%,特异性为73.8% (p<0.0001), pSOFA+AG敏感性为79.3% (p<0.0001)。综上所述,在评估儿童脓毒症患者死亡率时,pSOFA比PELOD-2更敏感,而使用pSOFA+AG并不比PELOD-2更敏感。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信