与 SOFA 评分相比,确定碱基超标在预测重症监护室患者死亡率方面的预测力。

Q2 Medicine
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2024-07-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.38.74
Omid Moradi Moghaddam, Mohammadjavad Gorjizadeh, Mohsen Sedighi, Alireza Amanollahi, Ali Khatibi, Mohammadreza Ghodrati, Mohammad Niakan Lahiji
{"title":"与 SOFA 评分相比,确定碱基超标在预测重症监护室患者死亡率方面的预测力。","authors":"Omid Moradi Moghaddam, Mohammadjavad Gorjizadeh, Mohsen Sedighi, Alireza Amanollahi, Ali Khatibi, Mohammadreza Ghodrati, Mohammad Niakan Lahiji","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.38.74","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acid-base disturbances are frequently found in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Base excess (BE) is commonly used to quantify the degree of metabolic impairment. We aimed to compare the predictive value of BE and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for mortality in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective and observational investigation was performed on 87 ICU patients who underwent mechanical ventilation. SOFA score and acid-base variables at 6 hours of ICU admission were analyzed and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to analyze the predictive value of BE and SOFA for mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age of patients was 63.91±5.03 years, and 60 (69%) were male. The non-survived patients had significantly higher SOFA (<i>P</i> = 0.001) and APACHE II scores (<i>P</i> = 0.001). The non-survived patients had a lower bicarbonate (<i>P</i> = 0.002), PO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> = 0.001), pH (<i>P</i> = 0.0021), and a higher PCO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> = 0.001) compared with survivors, and most patients who died (80%) had a low BE value (< -2) (<i>P</i> = 0.002). The estimated AUC of SOFA and BE was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73 - 0.92) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 - 0.85), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BE is, to some extent capable of predicting mortality in ICU patients. However, the SOFA score is a more accurate and reliable parameter in comparison to BE for prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining Predictive Power of Base Excess in Comparison with SOFA Score for Predicting Mortality in ICU Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Omid Moradi Moghaddam, Mohammadjavad Gorjizadeh, Mohsen Sedighi, Alireza Amanollahi, Ali Khatibi, Mohammadreza Ghodrati, Mohammad Niakan Lahiji\",\"doi\":\"10.47176/mjiri.38.74\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acid-base disturbances are frequently found in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Base excess (BE) is commonly used to quantify the degree of metabolic impairment. We aimed to compare the predictive value of BE and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for mortality in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective and observational investigation was performed on 87 ICU patients who underwent mechanical ventilation. SOFA score and acid-base variables at 6 hours of ICU admission were analyzed and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to analyze the predictive value of BE and SOFA for mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age of patients was 63.91±5.03 years, and 60 (69%) were male. The non-survived patients had significantly higher SOFA (<i>P</i> = 0.001) and APACHE II scores (<i>P</i> = 0.001). The non-survived patients had a lower bicarbonate (<i>P</i> = 0.002), PO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> = 0.001), pH (<i>P</i> = 0.0021), and a higher PCO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> = 0.001) compared with survivors, and most patients who died (80%) had a low BE value (< -2) (<i>P</i> = 0.002). The estimated AUC of SOFA and BE was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73 - 0.92) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 - 0.85), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BE is, to some extent capable of predicting mortality in ICU patients. However, the SOFA score is a more accurate and reliable parameter in comparison to BE for prediction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469720/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.74\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.74","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症监护室(ICU)患者经常出现酸碱紊乱。碱过量(BE)通常用于量化代谢损伤的程度。我们的目的是比较碱基过量和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分对 ICU 患者死亡率的预测价值:这项前瞻性观察调查针对 87 名接受机械通气的重症监护病房患者。分析并比较了存活者和非存活者入院 6 小时时的 SOFA 评分和酸碱变量。应用受方操作特征曲线(ROC)分析了BE和SOFA对死亡率的预测价值:患者的平均年龄为(63.91±5.03)岁,其中 60 例(69%)为男性。非存活患者的 SOFA(P = 0.001)和 APACHE II 评分(P = 0.001)明显更高。与存活患者相比,非存活患者的碳酸氢盐(P = 0.002)、PO2(P = 0.001)、pH 值(P = 0.0021)较低,PCO2(P = 0.001)较高,大多数死亡患者(80%)的 BE 值较低(<-2)(P = 0.002)。SOFA和BE的估计AUC分别为0.83(95% CI,0.73 - 0.92)和0.71(95% CI,0.57 - 0.85):BE在一定程度上可以预测ICU患者的死亡率。结论:BE在一定程度上可以预测ICU患者的死亡率,但与BE相比,SOFA评分是更准确、更可靠的预测参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determining Predictive Power of Base Excess in Comparison with SOFA Score for Predicting Mortality in ICU Patients.

Background: Acid-base disturbances are frequently found in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Base excess (BE) is commonly used to quantify the degree of metabolic impairment. We aimed to compare the predictive value of BE and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for mortality in ICU patients.

Methods: This prospective and observational investigation was performed on 87 ICU patients who underwent mechanical ventilation. SOFA score and acid-base variables at 6 hours of ICU admission were analyzed and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to analyze the predictive value of BE and SOFA for mortality.

Results: Mean age of patients was 63.91±5.03 years, and 60 (69%) were male. The non-survived patients had significantly higher SOFA (P = 0.001) and APACHE II scores (P = 0.001). The non-survived patients had a lower bicarbonate (P = 0.002), PO2 (P = 0.001), pH (P = 0.0021), and a higher PCO2 (P = 0.001) compared with survivors, and most patients who died (80%) had a low BE value (< -2) (P = 0.002). The estimated AUC of SOFA and BE was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73 - 0.92) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 - 0.85), respectively.

Conclusion: BE is, to some extent capable of predicting mortality in ICU patients. However, the SOFA score is a more accurate and reliable parameter in comparison to BE for prediction.

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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信