{"title":"基于营养状况预测低乳酸休克的模型:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Xiaofang Xu, Fang Hu, Zhaocai Zhang","doi":"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although Sepsis-3.0 defines septic shock as hypotension with serum lactate levels >2.0 mmol/L, this criterion may miss low-lactate shock: a clinically significant phenotype characterized by hypotension but without elevated lactate levels. The epidemiological characteristics and prognostic significance of low-lactate shock remain unclear, highlighting a critical gap in current shock management models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3,134 patients with shock admitted to a tertiary care medical institution from January 2015 to March 2022. We used propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) to control for confounding factors, aiming to determine the prevalence of low-lactate shock (lactate ≤ 2.0 mmol/L), identify risk factors through multivariable logistic regression, and validate the predictive model (NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL) using ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 28-day mortality rate was slightly lower in the low-lactate shock group compared to the high-lactate group (25.4% [94/369] vs. 35.8% [990/2,765], respectively). The age, nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002) score, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk score were significantly lower in the low-lactate shock group than in the high-lactate shock group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in gender distribution (P = 0.092). Multivariable analysis identified four independent predictors of low-lactate shock: NRS-2002 (OR=0.570, P<0.001), APACHE II (OR=0.869, P<0.001), TG (OR=0.772, P=0.035), and TBIL (OR=0.993, P=0.002). The composite NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model showed excellent discrimination (AUC=0.800, P<0.001) with balanced sensitivity (72.6%) and specificity (73.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low-lactate shock carries substantial mortality risk (25.4%). The validated NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model (AUC=0.800) provides an effective tool for early detection, addressing critical diagnostic gaps in shock management.</p>","PeriodicalId":21667,"journal":{"name":"SHOCK","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nutritional status-based model for predicting low-lactate shock: A retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaofang Xu, Fang Hu, Zhaocai Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002710\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although Sepsis-3.0 defines septic shock as hypotension with serum lactate levels >2.0 mmol/L, this criterion may miss low-lactate shock: a clinically significant phenotype characterized by hypotension but without elevated lactate levels. The epidemiological characteristics and prognostic significance of low-lactate shock remain unclear, highlighting a critical gap in current shock management models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3,134 patients with shock admitted to a tertiary care medical institution from January 2015 to March 2022. We used propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) to control for confounding factors, aiming to determine the prevalence of low-lactate shock (lactate ≤ 2.0 mmol/L), identify risk factors through multivariable logistic regression, and validate the predictive model (NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL) using ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 28-day mortality rate was slightly lower in the low-lactate shock group compared to the high-lactate group (25.4% [94/369] vs. 35.8% [990/2,765], respectively). The age, nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002) score, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk score were significantly lower in the low-lactate shock group than in the high-lactate shock group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in gender distribution (P = 0.092). Multivariable analysis identified four independent predictors of low-lactate shock: NRS-2002 (OR=0.570, P<0.001), APACHE II (OR=0.869, P<0.001), TG (OR=0.772, P=0.035), and TBIL (OR=0.993, P=0.002). The composite NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model showed excellent discrimination (AUC=0.800, P<0.001) with balanced sensitivity (72.6%) and specificity (73.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low-lactate shock carries substantial mortality risk (25.4%). The validated NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model (AUC=0.800) provides an effective tool for early detection, addressing critical diagnostic gaps in shock management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SHOCK\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SHOCK\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002710\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SHOCK","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002710","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nutritional status-based model for predicting low-lactate shock: A retrospective cohort study.
Background: Although Sepsis-3.0 defines septic shock as hypotension with serum lactate levels >2.0 mmol/L, this criterion may miss low-lactate shock: a clinically significant phenotype characterized by hypotension but without elevated lactate levels. The epidemiological characteristics and prognostic significance of low-lactate shock remain unclear, highlighting a critical gap in current shock management models.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3,134 patients with shock admitted to a tertiary care medical institution from January 2015 to March 2022. We used propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) to control for confounding factors, aiming to determine the prevalence of low-lactate shock (lactate ≤ 2.0 mmol/L), identify risk factors through multivariable logistic regression, and validate the predictive model (NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL) using ROC analysis.
Results: The 28-day mortality rate was slightly lower in the low-lactate shock group compared to the high-lactate group (25.4% [94/369] vs. 35.8% [990/2,765], respectively). The age, nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002) score, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk score were significantly lower in the low-lactate shock group than in the high-lactate shock group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in gender distribution (P = 0.092). Multivariable analysis identified four independent predictors of low-lactate shock: NRS-2002 (OR=0.570, P<0.001), APACHE II (OR=0.869, P<0.001), TG (OR=0.772, P=0.035), and TBIL (OR=0.993, P=0.002). The composite NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model showed excellent discrimination (AUC=0.800, P<0.001) with balanced sensitivity (72.6%) and specificity (73.5%).
Conclusions: Low-lactate shock carries substantial mortality risk (25.4%). The validated NRS-APACHE II-TG-TBIL model (AUC=0.800) provides an effective tool for early detection, addressing critical diagnostic gaps in shock management.
期刊介绍:
SHOCK®: Injury, Inflammation, and Sepsis: Laboratory and Clinical Approaches includes studies of novel therapeutic approaches, such as immunomodulation, gene therapy, nutrition, and others. The mission of the Journal is to foster and promote multidisciplinary studies, both experimental and clinical in nature, that critically examine the etiology, mechanisms and novel therapeutics of shock-related pathophysiological conditions. Its purpose is to excel as a vehicle for timely publication in the areas of basic and clinical studies of shock, trauma, sepsis, inflammation, ischemia, and related pathobiological states, with particular emphasis on the biologic mechanisms that determine the response to such injury. Making such information available will ultimately facilitate improved care of the traumatized or septic individual.