预测评分系统在评估尿路感染患者重症监护病房入院风险和住院死亡率中的比较

IF 0.3 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
S. Bae, Jae Hee Lee, Y. Choi
{"title":"预测评分系统在评估尿路感染患者重症监护病房入院风险和住院死亡率中的比较","authors":"S. Bae, Jae Hee Lee, Y. Choi","doi":"10.37678/dcybd.2022.2941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure (CRB), CRB65, and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality of patients with urinary tract infections (UTI) compared with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Methods: Data of patients with UTI who visited the emergency department of a single centre between February 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline characteristics were compared with the prevalence of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The effectiveness of CRB, CRB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS as indicators of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: Overall, 1151 patients were included, of whom 132 (11.5%) were admitted to the ICU and 30 (2.6%) succumbed to in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA as predictors of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were similar. CRB score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 73.5%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 69.2%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. CRB-65 score ≥2 had a sensitivity and specificity of 61.2% and 80.9%, respectively, for ICU admissions; 60% and 76.9%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. A qSOFA score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 79.6%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 74.8%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of SIRS were 0.580 and 0.617 respectively for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality, which showed lower predictive performance than those of the other three scoring systems. Conclusion: In ICU admission, CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA have better predictive performance than SIRS. CRB-65 and qSOFA have superior performance compared to CRB and SIRS in predicting mortality.","PeriodicalId":40137,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Critical & Intensive Care","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Predictive Scoring Systems in Assessing Risk for Intensive Care Unit Admission and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Urinary Tract Infections\",\"authors\":\"S. Bae, Jae Hee Lee, Y. Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.37678/dcybd.2022.2941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure (CRB), CRB65, and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality of patients with urinary tract infections (UTI) compared with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Methods: Data of patients with UTI who visited the emergency department of a single centre between February 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline characteristics were compared with the prevalence of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The effectiveness of CRB, CRB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS as indicators of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: Overall, 1151 patients were included, of whom 132 (11.5%) were admitted to the ICU and 30 (2.6%) succumbed to in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA as predictors of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were similar. CRB score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 73.5%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 69.2%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. CRB-65 score ≥2 had a sensitivity and specificity of 61.2% and 80.9%, respectively, for ICU admissions; 60% and 76.9%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. A qSOFA score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 79.6%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 74.8%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of SIRS were 0.580 and 0.617 respectively for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality, which showed lower predictive performance than those of the other three scoring systems. Conclusion: In ICU admission, CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA have better predictive performance than SIRS. CRB-65 and qSOFA have superior performance compared to CRB and SIRS in predicting mortality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Critical & Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Critical & Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37678/dcybd.2022.2941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Critical & Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37678/dcybd.2022.2941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨混淆、呼吸频率、血压(CRB)、CRB65和快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)在预测尿路感染(UTI)患者重症监护病房(ICU)入院和住院死亡率方面的有效性,并与系统性炎症反应综合征(SIRS)进行比较。方法:回顾性分析2018年2月至2020年3月在单一中心急诊科就诊的尿路感染患者的数据。将基线特征与ICU住院率和住院死亡率进行比较。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)评价CRB、CRB-65、qSOFA和SIRS作为ICU入院率和住院死亡率指标的有效性。结果:共纳入1151例患者,其中132例(11.5%)入住ICU, 30例(2.6%)院内死亡。CRB、CRB-65和qSOFA作为ICU入院和住院死亡率预测因子的AUROC值相似。CRB评分≥1对ICU入院的敏感性和特异性分别为71.3%和73.5%;住院死亡率分别为66.7%和69.2%。CRB-65评分≥2分对ICU入院患者的敏感性和特异性分别为61.2%和80.9%;住院死亡率分别为60%和76.9%。qSOFA评分≥1对ICU入院的敏感性和特异性分别为71.3%和79.6%;住院死亡率分别为66.7%和74.8%。SIRS对ICU住院率和住院死亡率的AUROC值分别为0.580和0.617,预测效果低于其他3种评分系统。结论:在ICU入院时,CRB、CRB-65和qSOFA的预测效果优于SIRS。CRB-65和qSOFA在预测死亡率方面优于CRB和SIRS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Predictive Scoring Systems in Assessing Risk for Intensive Care Unit Admission and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Urinary Tract Infections
Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure (CRB), CRB65, and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality of patients with urinary tract infections (UTI) compared with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Methods: Data of patients with UTI who visited the emergency department of a single centre between February 2018 and March 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline characteristics were compared with the prevalence of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The effectiveness of CRB, CRB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS as indicators of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: Overall, 1151 patients were included, of whom 132 (11.5%) were admitted to the ICU and 30 (2.6%) succumbed to in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA as predictors of ICU admission and in-hospital mortality were similar. CRB score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 73.5%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 69.2%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. CRB-65 score ≥2 had a sensitivity and specificity of 61.2% and 80.9%, respectively, for ICU admissions; 60% and 76.9%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. A qSOFA score ≥1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.3% and 79.6%, respectively, for ICU admission; 66.7% and 74.8%, respectively, for in-hospital mortality. AUROC values of SIRS were 0.580 and 0.617 respectively for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality, which showed lower predictive performance than those of the other three scoring systems. Conclusion: In ICU admission, CRB, CRB-65, and qSOFA have better predictive performance than SIRS. CRB-65 and qSOFA have superior performance compared to CRB and SIRS in predicting mortality.
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 & Intensive Care
Journal of Critical & Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
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