重症监护室老年患者基于患者与器官的预后工具 :一项为期 3 个月的随访观察研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Melanie Hochleitner, Lena Pickert, Nick A Nolting, Anna Maria Affeldt, Ingrid Becker, Thomas Benzing, Matthias Kochanek, Maria Cristina Polidori
{"title":"重症监护室老年患者基于患者与器官的预后工具 :一项为期 3 个月的随访观察研究。","authors":"Melanie Hochleitner, Lena Pickert, Nick A Nolting, Anna Maria Affeldt, Ingrid Becker, Thomas Benzing, Matthias Kochanek, Maria Cristina Polidori","doi":"10.1007/s00063-024-01179-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anticipating a doubling of older adults in Europe by 2050, healthcare systems face substantial challenges, particularly in critical care units. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based knowledge for treating and assessing mortality risk in older patients. This study compared the predictive accuracy of two assessment tools for long-term outcomes among older patients: the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). As the MPI is based on a more holistic assessment, it may provide a more accurate prediction than the organ-based SOFA.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Does the MPI provide a more accurate prediction of mortality risk and quality of life for older patients in critical care units than the organ-based SOFA score?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a 6-month study, 96 patients aged 65 and older admitted to intensive (ICU) or intermediate care units (IMC) were enrolled to assess 90-day mortality using a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based MPI and the SOFA score. The follow-up (FU) involved telephone assessments 30 and 90 days after admission, focusing on posthospitalization health and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both MPI (p = 0.039) and SOFA score (p = 0.014) successfully predicted mortality among older IMC and ICU patients in logistic regressions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses demonstrated comparable areas under the curve (AUCs) for MPI (0.618) and SOFA score (0.621), as well as a similar sensitivity and specificity (MPI 61.0% and 52.9%; SOFA score: 68.9% and 45.1%, respectively). The MPI at admission moreover correlated significantly with quality of life (p < 0.001, r = -0.631 at discharge; p = 0.005, r = -0.377 at 30-day FU; p = 0.004, r = -0.409 at 90-day FU) and nursing needs (Mann-Whitney U‑test, p = 0.002 at 30-day FU; p = 0.011 at 90-day FU) at FU, while the SOFA score did not show significant associations with respect to these parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In geriatric critical care, both the MPI and the SOFA score effectively predict mortality risk. While the SOFA score may appear more practical due to its simpler and faster implementation, only the MPI demonstrated significant correlations with quality of life and nursing needs in the FU after 30 and 90 days.</p>","PeriodicalId":49019,"journal":{"name":"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient- vs organ-based prognostic tools for older patients in critical care units : An observational study with a 3-month follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Melanie Hochleitner, Lena Pickert, Nick A Nolting, Anna Maria Affeldt, Ingrid Becker, Thomas Benzing, Matthias Kochanek, Maria Cristina Polidori\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00063-024-01179-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anticipating a doubling of older adults in Europe by 2050, healthcare systems face substantial challenges, particularly in critical care units. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based knowledge for treating and assessing mortality risk in older patients. This study compared the predictive accuracy of two assessment tools for long-term outcomes among older patients: the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). As the MPI is based on a more holistic assessment, it may provide a more accurate prediction than the organ-based SOFA.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Does the MPI provide a more accurate prediction of mortality risk and quality of life for older patients in critical care units than the organ-based SOFA score?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a 6-month study, 96 patients aged 65 and older admitted to intensive (ICU) or intermediate care units (IMC) were enrolled to assess 90-day mortality using a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based MPI and the SOFA score. The follow-up (FU) involved telephone assessments 30 and 90 days after admission, focusing on posthospitalization health and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both MPI (p = 0.039) and SOFA score (p = 0.014) successfully predicted mortality among older IMC and ICU patients in logistic regressions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses demonstrated comparable areas under the curve (AUCs) for MPI (0.618) and SOFA score (0.621), as well as a similar sensitivity and specificity (MPI 61.0% and 52.9%; SOFA score: 68.9% and 45.1%, respectively). The MPI at admission moreover correlated significantly with quality of life (p < 0.001, r = -0.631 at discharge; p = 0.005, r = -0.377 at 30-day FU; p = 0.004, r = -0.409 at 90-day FU) and nursing needs (Mann-Whitney U‑test, p = 0.002 at 30-day FU; p = 0.011 at 90-day FU) at FU, while the SOFA score did not show significant associations with respect to these parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In geriatric critical care, both the MPI and the SOFA score effectively predict mortality risk. While the SOFA score may appear more practical due to its simpler and faster implementation, only the MPI demonstrated significant correlations with quality of life and nursing needs in the FU after 30 and 90 days.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-024-01179-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-024-01179-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:预计到 2050 年,欧洲的老年人将翻一番,医疗保健系统面临着巨大的挑战,尤其是在重症监护病房。然而,在治疗和评估老年患者的死亡风险方面仍然缺乏循证知识。这项研究比较了两种评估工具对老年患者长期预后的预测准确性:多维预后指数(MPI)和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)。由于 MPI 基于更全面的评估,因此可能比基于器官的 SOFA 预测更准确:与基于器官的 SOFA 评分相比,MPI 是否能更准确地预测重症监护病房老年患者的死亡风险和生活质量?在一项为期 6 个月的研究中,96 名入住重症监护室(ICU)或中级监护室(IMC)的 65 岁及以上患者被纳入研究,使用基于老年综合评估的 MPI 和 SOFA 评分评估 90 天死亡率。随访(FU)包括入院后 30 天和 90 天的电话评估,重点是入院后的健康状况和生活质量:结果:在逻辑回归中,MPI(p = 0.039)和 SOFA 评分(p = 0.014)都能成功预测 IMC 和 ICU 老年患者的死亡率。接收者操作特征(ROC)分析表明,MPI(0.618)和 SOFA 评分(0.621)的曲线下面积(AUC)相当,灵敏度和特异性相似(MPI 分别为 61.0% 和 52.9%;SOFA 评分分别为 68.9% 和 45.1%)。此外,入院时的 MPI 与生活质量也有显著相关性(p 结论):在老年重症监护中,MPI 和 SOFA 评分都能有效预测死亡风险。虽然 SOFA 评分因其实施简单快捷而显得更为实用,但只有 MPI 与 30 天和 90 天后 FU 的生活质量和护理需求有显著相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient- vs organ-based prognostic tools for older patients in critical care units : An observational study with a 3-month follow-up.

Background: Anticipating a doubling of older adults in Europe by 2050, healthcare systems face substantial challenges, particularly in critical care units. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based knowledge for treating and assessing mortality risk in older patients. This study compared the predictive accuracy of two assessment tools for long-term outcomes among older patients: the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). As the MPI is based on a more holistic assessment, it may provide a more accurate prediction than the organ-based SOFA.

Objective: Does the MPI provide a more accurate prediction of mortality risk and quality of life for older patients in critical care units than the organ-based SOFA score?

Methods: In a 6-month study, 96 patients aged 65 and older admitted to intensive (ICU) or intermediate care units (IMC) were enrolled to assess 90-day mortality using a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based MPI and the SOFA score. The follow-up (FU) involved telephone assessments 30 and 90 days after admission, focusing on posthospitalization health and quality of life.

Results: Both MPI (p = 0.039) and SOFA score (p = 0.014) successfully predicted mortality among older IMC and ICU patients in logistic regressions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses demonstrated comparable areas under the curve (AUCs) for MPI (0.618) and SOFA score (0.621), as well as a similar sensitivity and specificity (MPI 61.0% and 52.9%; SOFA score: 68.9% and 45.1%, respectively). The MPI at admission moreover correlated significantly with quality of life (p < 0.001, r = -0.631 at discharge; p = 0.005, r = -0.377 at 30-day FU; p = 0.004, r = -0.409 at 90-day FU) and nursing needs (Mann-Whitney U‑test, p = 0.002 at 30-day FU; p = 0.011 at 90-day FU) at FU, while the SOFA score did not show significant associations with respect to these parameters.

Conclusions: In geriatric critical care, both the MPI and the SOFA score effectively predict mortality risk. While the SOFA score may appear more practical due to its simpler and faster implementation, only the MPI demonstrated significant correlations with quality of life and nursing needs in the FU after 30 and 90 days.

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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medizinische Klinik – Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin is an internationally respected interdisciplinary journal. It is intended for physicians, nurses, respiratory and physical therapists active in intensive care and accident/emergency units, but also for internists, anesthesiologists, surgeons, neurologists, and pediatricians with special interest in intensive care medicine. Comprehensive reviews describe the most recent advances in the field of internal medicine with special focus on intensive care problems. Freely submitted original articles present important studies in this discipline and promote scientific exchange, while articles in the category Photo essay feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. In the rubric journal club well-respected experts comment on outstanding international publications. Review articles under the rubric "Continuing Medical Education" present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice. The rubrics "Nursing practice" and "Physical therapy" round out the information.
×
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