碳氧血红蛋白是脓毒症和感染性休克患者的有效床边预后工具吗?

IF 1.7 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-14 eCollection Date: 2023-10-01 DOI:10.2478/jccm-2023-0031
Bianca-Liana Grigorescu, Oana Coman, Anca Meda Văsieșiu, Anca Bacârea, Marius Petrișor, Irina Săplăcan, Raluca Ștefania Fodor
{"title":"碳氧血红蛋白是脓毒症和感染性休克患者的有效床边预后工具吗?","authors":"Bianca-Liana Grigorescu, Oana Coman, Anca Meda Văsieșiu, Anca Bacârea, Marius Petrișor, Irina Săplăcan, Raluca Ștefania Fodor","doi":"10.2478/jccm-2023-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proper management of sepsis poses a challenge even today, with early diagnosis and targeted treatment being the most important steps. Easy, cost-effective bedside tools are needed in order to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Aim of study: </strong>This study aims to find a correlation between Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) severity scores, the Neutrophil-Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in septic or septic shock patients with the scope of establishing a bed side cost-effective prognostic tool.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A pilot, prospective, observational, and ongoing study was conducted on 61 patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock according to the SEPSIS 3 Consensus definition. We followed clinical and paraclinical parameters on day 1 (D1) and day 5 (D5) after meeting the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On D1 we found a statistically significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), r = 0.7287 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.5841-0.8285, r = 0.6862 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.5251-0.7998 and r = 0.8534 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.7663 to 0.9097. On D5 we observed similar results: a significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), with r = 0.7877 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.6283 to 0.8836, r = 0.8210 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.6822 to 0.9027 and r = 0.8880 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II., CI: 0.7952 to 0.9401. Nil correlation was found between the severity scores, NLR and COHb on D1 and D5.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost-effective bedside tools to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis are yet to be found, however the positive correlation between the severity scores point out to a combination of such tools for prognosis prediction of septic or septic shock patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":44227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"9 4","pages":"239-251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10644283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?\",\"authors\":\"Bianca-Liana Grigorescu, Oana Coman, Anca Meda Văsieșiu, Anca Bacârea, Marius Petrișor, Irina Săplăcan, Raluca Ștefania Fodor\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jccm-2023-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proper management of sepsis poses a challenge even today, with early diagnosis and targeted treatment being the most important steps. Easy, cost-effective bedside tools are needed in order to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Aim of study: </strong>This study aims to find a correlation between Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) severity scores, the Neutrophil-Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in septic or septic shock patients with the scope of establishing a bed side cost-effective prognostic tool.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A pilot, prospective, observational, and ongoing study was conducted on 61 patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock according to the SEPSIS 3 Consensus definition. We followed clinical and paraclinical parameters on day 1 (D1) and day 5 (D5) after meeting the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On D1 we found a statistically significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), r = 0.7287 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.5841-0.8285, r = 0.6862 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.5251-0.7998 and r = 0.8534 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.7663 to 0.9097. On D5 we observed similar results: a significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), with r = 0.7877 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.6283 to 0.8836, r = 0.8210 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.6822 to 0.9027 and r = 0.8880 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II., CI: 0.7952 to 0.9401. Nil correlation was found between the severity scores, NLR and COHb on D1 and D5.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost-effective bedside tools to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis are yet to be found, however the positive correlation between the severity scores point out to a combination of such tools for prognosis prediction of septic or septic shock patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"239-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10644283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2023-0031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2023-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:即使在今天,败血症的适当管理仍然是一个挑战,早期诊断和有针对性的治疗是最重要的步骤。简单,成本效益的床边工具是必要的,以便查明败血症或感染性休克的结果。研究目的:本研究旨在探讨感染性或感染性休克患者的顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)、急性生理和慢性健康评估II (APACHE II)和简化急性生理评分II (SAPS II)严重程度评分、中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比率(NLR)和羧血红蛋白(COHb)水平之间的相关性,以建立一种具有成本效益的床边预后工具。材料和方法:根据脓毒症3共识定义,对61例脓毒症或感染性休克患者进行了一项前瞻性、观察性和正在进行的研究。在符合纳入标准后的第1天(D1)和第5天(D5),我们随访了临床和临床旁参数。结果:D1上,我们发现各严重程度评分之间存在统计学意义上的正相关(p)。结论:尚没有找到具有成本效益的床边工具来确定脓毒症的结局,但严重程度评分之间的正相关表明,这些工具的组合可用于脓毒症或脓毒症休克患者的预后预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

Introduction: Proper management of sepsis poses a challenge even today, with early diagnosis and targeted treatment being the most important steps. Easy, cost-effective bedside tools are needed in order to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis or septic shock.

Aim of study: This study aims to find a correlation between Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) severity scores, the Neutrophil-Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in septic or septic shock patients with the scope of establishing a bed side cost-effective prognostic tool.

Materials and methods: A pilot, prospective, observational, and ongoing study was conducted on 61 patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock according to the SEPSIS 3 Consensus definition. We followed clinical and paraclinical parameters on day 1 (D1) and day 5 (D5) after meeting the inclusion criteria.

Results: On D1 we found a statistically significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), r = 0.7287 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.5841-0.8285, r = 0.6862 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.5251-0.7998 and r = 0.8534 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.7663 to 0.9097. On D5 we observed similar results: a significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), with r = 0.7877 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.6283 to 0.8836, r = 0.8210 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.6822 to 0.9027 and r = 0.8880 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II., CI: 0.7952 to 0.9401. Nil correlation was found between the severity scores, NLR and COHb on D1 and D5.

Conclusion: Cost-effective bedside tools to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis are yet to be found, however the positive correlation between the severity scores point out to a combination of such tools for prognosis prediction of septic or septic shock patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Critical Care Medicine
Journal of Critical Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
审稿时长
11 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