院前识别脓毒症患者和适合不转运患者时筛查工具的性能和血液分析的使用--一项观察性研究。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Agnes Olander, Lina Frick, Jennifer Johansson, Kristoffer Wibring
{"title":"院前识别脓毒症患者和适合不转运患者时筛查工具的性能和血液分析的使用--一项观察性研究。","authors":"Agnes Olander, Lina Frick, Jennifer Johansson, Kristoffer Wibring","doi":"10.1186/s12873-024-01098-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early recognition of sepsis by the EMS (Emergency Medical Services), along with communicating this concern to the emergency department, could improve patient prognosis and outcome. Knowledge is limited about the performance of sepsis identification screening tools in the EMS setting. Research is also limited on the effectiveness of prehospital use of blood tests for sepsis identification. Integrating blood analyses with screening tools could improve sepsis identification, leading to prompt interventions and improved patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the present study is firstly to evaluate the performance of various screening tools for sepsis identification in the EMS setting and secondly to assess the potential improvement in accuracy by incorporating blood analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective observational cohort study. The data were collected from prehospital and hospital medical records in Region Halland. Data on demographics, vital signs, blood tests, treatment, and outcomes were collected from patients suspected by EMS personnel of having infection. The data were analysed using Student's t-test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and odds ratio were used to indicate accuracy and predictive value.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5,405 EMS missions concerning 3,225 unique patients were included. The incidence of sepsis was 9.8%. None of the eleven tools included had both high sensitivity and specificity for sepsis identification. White blood cell (WBC) count was the blood analysis with the highest sensitivity but the lowest specificity for identifying sepsis. Adding WBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) or lactate to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) increased the specificity to > 80% but substantially lowered the sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identifying sepsis in EMS settings remains challenging, with existing screening tools offering limited accuracy. CRP, WBC, and lactate blood tests add minimal predictive value in distinguishing sepsis or determining non-conveyance eligibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"180"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462654/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The performance of screening tools and use of blood analyses in prehospital identification of sepsis patients and patients suitable for non-conveyance - an observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Agnes Olander, Lina Frick, Jennifer Johansson, Kristoffer Wibring\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12873-024-01098-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early recognition of sepsis by the EMS (Emergency Medical Services), along with communicating this concern to the emergency department, could improve patient prognosis and outcome. Knowledge is limited about the performance of sepsis identification screening tools in the EMS setting. Research is also limited on the effectiveness of prehospital use of blood tests for sepsis identification. Integrating blood analyses with screening tools could improve sepsis identification, leading to prompt interventions and improved patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the present study is firstly to evaluate the performance of various screening tools for sepsis identification in the EMS setting and secondly to assess the potential improvement in accuracy by incorporating blood analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective observational cohort study. The data were collected from prehospital and hospital medical records in Region Halland. Data on demographics, vital signs, blood tests, treatment, and outcomes were collected from patients suspected by EMS personnel of having infection. The data were analysed using Student's t-test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and odds ratio were used to indicate accuracy and predictive value.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5,405 EMS missions concerning 3,225 unique patients were included. The incidence of sepsis was 9.8%. None of the eleven tools included had both high sensitivity and specificity for sepsis identification. White blood cell (WBC) count was the blood analysis with the highest sensitivity but the lowest specificity for identifying sepsis. Adding WBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) or lactate to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) increased the specificity to > 80% but substantially lowered the sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identifying sepsis in EMS settings remains challenging, with existing screening tools offering limited accuracy. CRP, WBC, and lactate blood tests add minimal predictive value in distinguishing sepsis or determining non-conveyance eligibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462654/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01098-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01098-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通过急救医疗服务(EMS)及早识别败血症,并将这一问题告知急诊科,可以改善患者的预后和治疗效果。目前对急救医疗服务中败血症识别筛查工具的性能了解有限。关于院前使用血液检测进行败血症鉴定的有效性的研究也很有限。将血液分析与筛查工具相结合可提高败血症的识别率,从而及时采取干预措施并改善患者预后。目的:本研究的目的首先是评估各种筛查工具在急救医疗环境中识别败血症的性能,其次是评估将血液分析与筛查工具相结合可提高准确性的潜力:这是一项回顾性观察队列研究。数据来自哈兰德地区的院前和医院医疗记录。研究收集了被急救人员怀疑感染的患者的人口统计学、生命体征、血液检测、治疗和结果数据。数据采用学生 t 检验进行分析。灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和几率比用于表示准确性和预测值:共纳入了 5405 次急救任务,涉及 3225 名患者。败血症发生率为 9.8%。在纳入的 11 种工具中,没有一种对败血症的识别具有高敏感性和高特异性。白细胞(WBC)计数是灵敏度最高但特异性最低的败血症鉴定血液分析。将白细胞、C 反应蛋白 (CRP) 或乳酸盐添加到国家早期预警评分 (NEWS) 中可将特异性提高到 80% 以上,但却大大降低了灵敏度:结论:在急救医疗环境中识别败血症仍具有挑战性,现有筛查工具的准确性有限。CRP、白细胞和乳酸盐血液测试在区分败血症或确定非转运资格方面的预测价值极低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The performance of screening tools and use of blood analyses in prehospital identification of sepsis patients and patients suitable for non-conveyance - an observational study.

Background: Early recognition of sepsis by the EMS (Emergency Medical Services), along with communicating this concern to the emergency department, could improve patient prognosis and outcome. Knowledge is limited about the performance of sepsis identification screening tools in the EMS setting. Research is also limited on the effectiveness of prehospital use of blood tests for sepsis identification. Integrating blood analyses with screening tools could improve sepsis identification, leading to prompt interventions and improved patient outcomes.

Aim: The aim of the present study is firstly to evaluate the performance of various screening tools for sepsis identification in the EMS setting and secondly to assess the potential improvement in accuracy by incorporating blood analyses.

Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. The data were collected from prehospital and hospital medical records in Region Halland. Data on demographics, vital signs, blood tests, treatment, and outcomes were collected from patients suspected by EMS personnel of having infection. The data were analysed using Student's t-test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and odds ratio were used to indicate accuracy and predictive value.

Results: In total, 5,405 EMS missions concerning 3,225 unique patients were included. The incidence of sepsis was 9.8%. None of the eleven tools included had both high sensitivity and specificity for sepsis identification. White blood cell (WBC) count was the blood analysis with the highest sensitivity but the lowest specificity for identifying sepsis. Adding WBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) or lactate to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) increased the specificity to > 80% but substantially lowered the sensitivity.

Conclusions: Identifying sepsis in EMS settings remains challenging, with existing screening tools offering limited accuracy. CRP, WBC, and lactate blood tests add minimal predictive value in distinguishing sepsis or determining non-conveyance eligibility.

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
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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