目的 比较五种评分系统对评估老年多器官功能不全综合征(multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in the elderly, MODSE)患者预后的价值。方法 共纳入465例MODSE患者并录入相应的各项临床指标,计算急性生理及慢性健康状况评分Ⅱ/Ⅲ(APACHE Ⅱ/Ⅲ)、简化急性生理评分Ⅱ(SAPS Ⅱ)、序贯脏器衰竭评估评分(SOFA)、老年多器官功能不全评分(MODSES)五种评分。利用受试者工作曲线(ROC)分析得出评估预后的最佳评分系统。结果 APACHE Ⅱ、APACHE Ⅲ、SAPS Ⅱ、SOFA和MODSES的ROC曲线下面积分别为:0.768(95%CI,0.725-0.811)、0.796(95%CI,0.755-0.837)、0.789(95%CI,0.748-0.830)、0.746(95%CI,0.701-0.791)和0.783(95%CI,0.740-0.825);五种评分系统中APACHE Ⅲ评分的灵敏度最高(0.780)和Youden指数(0.461)最大。APACHE Ⅱ评价预后的特异度最高(0.835)。结论 五种评分系统均能较好地评估MODSE患者的预后,诊断效能前3位的评分依次为APACHE Ⅲ、SAPS Ⅱ和MODSES。
Abstract
Objective To compare the prognostic value of five scoring systems in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in the elderly(MODSE). Methods In this study, we collected the clinical data of 465 patients with MODSE. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅲ (APACHE Ⅲ) score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score Ⅱ (SAPS Ⅱ), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome in the Elderly Score(MODSES) were all calculated. The prognostic values of five scoring systems were evaluated by receiver operator characteristic(ROC) curve. Results In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was 0.768( 95%CI, 0.725-0.811) for APACHE Ⅱ, 0.796(95%CI, 0.755-0.837) for APACHE Ⅲ, 0.789(95%CI, 0.748-0.830) for SAPS Ⅱ, 0.746(95%CI, 0.701-0.791) for SOFA and 0.783(95%CI, 0.740-0.825) for MODSES, APACHE Ⅲ had the highest sensitivity of 0.780, and APACHE Ⅱ had the highest specificity of 0.835. Conclusions The five scoring systems showed satisfactory forecasting ability in prognostic prediction of patients with MODSE. The scoring systems with high prognostic values are APACHE Ⅲ, SAPS Ⅱ and MODSES.
关键词
老年多器官功能不全综合征 /
预后评估
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 王士雯,韩亚玲,钱小顺,等.1605例老年多器官功能衰竭的临床分析[J]. 中华老年多器官疾病杂志, 2002,1(1):7-10.
[2] 王士雯,王今达,陈可冀,等.老年多器官功能障碍综合征(MODSE)诊断标准(试行草案, 2003)[J]. 中国危重病急救医学, 2004,16(1):1.
[3] Sternbach G L. The Glasgow coma scale [J]. J Emerg Med,2000, 19(1): 67-71.
[4] Knaus W A, Draper E A, Wagner D P, et al. APACHE Ⅱ: a severity of disease classification system[J]. Crit Care Med, 1985,13(10):818-829.
[5] Knans W A, Wagner D P, Dmper E A, et al. The APACHE Ⅲ prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality forcritically ill hospitalized adults [J]. Chest, 1991,100(6):1619-1636.
[6] Le Gall J R, Lemeshow S, Sanlnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS Ⅱ) based on a European/North American multicenter study[J]. JAMA, 1993,270(24):2957-2963.
[7] Antonelli M, Moreno R, Vincent J L, et al. Application of SOFA score to trauma patients. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [J]. Intensive Care Med, 1999,25(4):389-394.
[8] 郭 超,解立新,冯 丹.老年多脏器功能不全综合征数据库及评分标准的建立[C]//中华医学会第五次全国重症医学大会论文汇编. 广州: 中华医学会第五次全国重症医学大会, 2011:188.
[9] Barie P S, Hydo L J, Pieracci F M, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critical surgical illness [J]. Surg Infect, 2009,10(5):369-377.
[10] 齐海宇, 阴祯宏, 王 超, 等. 老年多器官功能障碍综合征的死亡因素分析[J]. 中国急救医学, 2007,27(11):967-970.
[11] Khanna A K, Meher S, Prakash S, et al. Comparison of Ranson, Glasgow, MOSS, SIRS, BISAP, APACHE-Ⅱ, CTSI Scores, IL-6, CRP, and procalcitonin in predicting severity, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and mortality in acute pancreatitis[J]. HPB Surgery, 2013,2013(9):1-10.
[12] Kellner P, Prondzinsky R, Pallmann L, et al. Predictive value of outcome scores in patients suffering from cardiogenic shock complicating AMI: APACHE Ⅱ, APACHE Ⅲ, Elebute-Stoner, SOFA, and SAPS Ⅱ[J]. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed, 2013,108(8):666-674.
[13] 郭 超,冯 丹,解立新.老年多脏器功能不全综合征患者中应用不同预后评分的比较[J]. 军医进修学院学报, 2011,32(3):219-224.
[14] Sakr Y, Krauss C, Amaral A C, et al. Comparison of the performance of SAPS Ⅱ, SAPS 3, APACHE Ⅱ, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2008,101(6):798-803.
[15] 赵鹏飞, 付小萌, 王 超, 等. 多器官功能障碍综合征诊断标准及评分系统现状[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2013,12(8):630-636.
PDF(662 KB)
