社区获得性肺炎:急诊科三种死亡率预测评分的比较。

Pub Date : 2021-10-23 eCollection Date: 2021-10-01 DOI:10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287
Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes
{"title":"社区获得性肺炎:急诊科三种死亡率预测评分的比较。","authors":"Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes","doi":"10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.</p>","PeriodicalId":72638,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"52 4","pages":"e2044287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/4e/1657-9534-cm-52-04-e2044287.PMC9015018.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes\",\"doi\":\"10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\"52 4\",\"pages\":\"e2044287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/4e/1657-9534-cm-52-04-e2044287.PMC9015018.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:qSOFA 是一种识别疑似感染患者和并发症风险的评分。其标准与肺炎预后评分(CRB-65 - CURB-65)的评估标准相同,但目前尚不清楚哪种评分最能预测死亡率和入住重症监护室的风险:比较三种评分标准(CURB-65、CRB-65 和 qSOFA),以确定哪种工具最能识别死亡率或入住重症监护病房(ICU)风险增加的急诊科肺炎患者:对哥伦比亚五家医院的三组前瞻性肺炎住院患者进行二次分析。方法:对哥伦比亚五家医院的三组前瞻性肺炎住院患者进行二次分析,并通过判别和校准方法对评分的准确性进行验证和比较:第一、第二和第三组分别有 158、745 和 207 名患者,死亡率分别为 32.3%、17.2% 和 18.4%,需要入住重症监护室的比例分别为 52.5%、43.5% 和 25.6%。队列 3 中 CURB-65 的死亡率 AUC-ROC 最佳(AUC-ROC=0.67)。这三个评分的校准是适当的(P>0.05):结论:这些评分均无法预测死亡率和入住重症监护室的情况。此外,CRB 65 的判别能力最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Background: qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.

Objective: Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Methods: Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.

Results: Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.

Conclusions: None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.

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
×
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