摘要目的 评价多种标志物及疾病严重程度评分对脓毒症患者预后的评估价值.方法 回顾性分析2015年1月至2016年12月入住贵州医科大学附属医院重症加强治疗病房(ICU)、符合Sepsis-3诊断标准的成人患者临床资料,根据预后将患者分为存活组和死亡组.建立受试者工作特征曲线(ROC),评估入ICU时血乳酸(Lac)、24 h乳酸清除率(LCR)、入ICU时血清降钙素原(PCT)、快速序贯器官衰竭评分(qSOFA)及24 h内序贯器官衰竭评分(SOFA)、简化急性生理学评分Ⅱ(SAPSⅡ)、急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分对患者预后的预测价值.结果 152例脓毒症患者中存活110例,死亡42例.与存活组比较,死亡组入ICU时Lac、PCT、SOFA评分、qSOFA评分、SAPSⅡ评分、APACHEⅡ评分明显升高,24 h LCR明显降低.ROC曲线分析显示,SAPSⅡ评分、24 h LCR、SOFA评分对脓毒症预后的预测价值较大,SAPSⅡ评分的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.877(P=0.000),最佳阈值为41.50分时,敏感度为94.3%,特异度为68.5%;24 h LCR的AUC为0.869(P=0.000),最佳阈值为40.2%时,敏感度为92.1%,特异度为75.5%;SOFA评分的AUC为0.815(P=0.000),最佳阈值为7.60分时,敏感度为79.9%,特异度为78.5%.而PCT(AUC=0.759)、入ICU时Lac(AUC=0.725)、qSOFA(AUC=0.701)、APACHEⅡ评分(AUC=0.680)对脓毒症患者的预测价值一般(AUC 0.6~0.8).对于腹腔感染致脓毒症患者,预测预后最准确的指标为SOFA评分(AUC=0.889,P=0.000,最佳阈值为9.50分时,敏感度为81.2%,特异度为83.5%);对于肺部感染致脓毒症患者,预测预后最准确的指标为PCT(AUC=0.891,P=0.001,最佳阈值为3.95 mg/L时,敏感度为84.7%,特异度为94.1%).结论 SOFA评分及qSOFA评分不能代替传统评价指标评估脓毒症患者的预后.

abstractsObjective Assess the value of several biomarkers and disease severity scores for the prognostic assessment of sepsis.Methods The clinical data of adult patients, who met the diagnostic criteria for Sepsis-3 and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University from January 2015 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into survival group and death group. The levels of serum lactate (Lac), lactate clearance rate of 24 hours later (24 h LCR), procalcitonin (PCT), quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, SOFA score, simplified acute physiology score Ⅱ (SAPS Ⅱ), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation scoring system Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) score were determined, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were used to analyze the prognostic value of the indicators above.Results 110 of 152 sepsis patients survived, while the others died. Compared with survival group, serum Lac, PCT, SOFA score, qSOFA score, SAPS Ⅱ score, APACHE Ⅱ score of death group were increased, and 24 h LCR was decreased. SAPS Ⅱ[area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.877,P = 0.000, when threshold value was 41.50, sensitivity was 94.3%, specificity was 68.5%], 24 h LCR (AUC = 0.869,P = 0.000, when threshold value was 40.2%, sensitivity was 92.1%, specificity was 75.5%) and SOFA score (AUC = 0.815,P = 0.000, when threshold value was 7.60, sensitivity was 79.9%, specificity was 78.5%) showed better predictive value of sepsis. However, the predictive value of PCT (AUC = 0.759), Lac (AUC = 0.725), qSOFA (AUC = 0.701) and APACHE Ⅱ score (AUC = 0.680) were poorer (AUC = 0.6-0.8). For sepsis caused by abdominal cavity infection, the most accurate index was SOFA score (AUC = 0.889,P = 0.000, when threshold value was 9.50, sensitivity was 81.2%, specificity was 83.5%), and for sepsis caused by pneumonia, the most accurate index was PCT (AUC = 0.891,P = 0.001, when threshold value was 3.95 mg/L, sensitivity was 84.7%, specificity was 94.1%).Conclusion SOFA score and qSOFA score cannot take the place of traditional evaluation index for the evaluation of the prognosis of patients with sepsis.