5种评分方法在脓毒症相关性脑病预后评估中的作用
Effect of 5 methods of critical illness score in the prognosis evaluation of sepsis-associated encephalopathy
目的:探讨儿童危重病例评分(PCIS)、儿童第三代死亡风险评分(PRISMⅢ)、儿童器官障碍评分2(PELOD-2)、儿童序贯器官衰竭评分(p-SOFA)及格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)在SAE预后评估中的作用。方法:回顾性分析2010年1月至2020年12月广东省人民医院儿科重症监护室(PICU)收治的82例脓毒症相关性脑病(SAE)患儿的临床信息,依据住院28 d结局分为存活组和死亡组,采用ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评价PCIS、PRISMⅢ、PELOD-2、p-SOFA和GCS评分对SAE的死亡预测作用;Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验评估各评分方法校准度。结果:82例SAE截至入院28 d,存活72例,死亡10例,病死率12.20%,死亡组GCS[7 (3,12)分 vs.12 (8,14)分]、PCIS[76 (64,82)分 vs.82 (78,88)分]评分低于存活组,PRISMⅢ[14 (12,17)分 vs.7 (3,12)分]、PELOD-2 [8 (5,13)分 vs.4 (2,7)分],p-SOFA评分[11(5,12)分 vs.6(3,9)分]高于存活组( P均<0.05)。PCIS、PRISMⅢ、PELOD-2、pSOFA和GCS评分预测SAE预后的AUC分别为0.773( P=0.012,AUC>0.7),0.832 ( P=0.02,AUC>0.7),0.767 ( P=0.014,AUC>0.7),0.688 ( P=0.084,AUC<0.7),0.692( P=0.077,AUC<0.7);拟合优度检验示PCIS( χ2=5.329, P=0.722),PRISMⅢ( χ2=12.877, P=0.177)、PELOD-2( χ2=8.487, P=0.205)、pSOFA( χ2=9.048, P=0.338)、GCS( χ2=3.78, P=0.848)。 结论:PCIS、PRISMⅢ和PELOD-2评分对儿童SAE预后具有良好预测能力,其中PCIS评分可以更为准确地对SAE预后预测的拟合效果进行评估。
更多Objective:To explore the effect of pediatric critical illness score (PCIS), pediatric risk of mortality Ⅲ score (PRISM Ⅲ), pediatric logistic organ dysfunction 2 (PELOD-2), pediatric sequential organ failure assessment (p-SOFA) score and Glasglow coma scale (GCS) in the prognosis evaluation of septic-associated encephalopathy (SAE).Methods:The data of children with SAE admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2010 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the survival and death groups according to the clinical outcome on the 28th day after admission. The efficiency of PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ, PELOD-2, p-SOFA and GCS scores for predicting death were evaluated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test assessed the calibration of each scoring system.Results:Up to 28 d after admission, 72 of 82 children with SAE survived and 10 died, with a mortality rate of 12.20%. Compared with the survival group, the death group had significantly lower GCS [7 (3, 12) vs. 12 (8, 14)] and PCIS scores [76 (64, 82) vs. 82 (78, 88)], and significantly higher PRISM Ⅲ [14 (12, 17) vs. 7 (3, 12)], PELOD-2 [8 (5, 13) vs. 4 (2, 7)] and p-SOFA scores [11 (5, 12) vs. 6 (3, 9)] ( P<0.05). The AUCs of PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ, PELOD-2, p-SOFA and GCS scores for predicting SAE prognosis were 0.773 ( P=0.012, AUC>0.7), 0.832 ( P=0.02, AUC>0.7), 0.767 ( P=0.014, AUC>0.7), 0.688 ( P=0.084, AUC<0.7), and 0.692 ( P=0.077,AUC<0.7), respectively. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed that PCIS ( χ2=5.329, P=0.722) predicted the mortality and the actual mortality in the best fitting effect, while PRISM Ⅲ ( χ2=12.877, P=0.177), PELOD-2 ( χ2=8.487, P=0.205), p-SOFA ( χ2=9.048, P=0.338) and GCS ( χ2=3.780, P=0.848) had poor fitting effect. Conclusions:The PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ and PELOD-2 scores have good predictive ability assessing the prognosis of children with SAE, while the PCIS score can more accurately evaluate the fitting effect of SAE prognosis prediction.
More- 浏览:0
- 被引:0
- 下载:0
相似文献
- 中文期刊
- 外文期刊
- 学位论文
- 会议论文